DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
This office action is submitted in response to the application filed on 8/31/24.
Claims 1-16 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 .
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Independent claims 1 and 9, in part, describe an invention comprising: analyzing an image to identify information about equipment portrayed in the image; and retrieving volunteer user data that includes a willingness to help the user with the equipment. As such, the invention is directed to the abstract idea of soliciting assistance with gym equipment from various volunteers, which, pursuant to MPEP 2106.04(a), is aptly categorized as a method of organizing human activity. Therefore, under Step 2A, Prong One, the claims recite a judicial exception.
Next, the aforementioned claims recite additional elements that are associated with the judicial exception, including: receiving an image of equipment from a user device; and transmitting information about the equipment to user devices. Dependent claims 2 and 10 further describe transmitting volunteer data to a user device and/or transmitting the user data to other user devices. Dependent claims 3 and 11 further describe receiving a rating of a plurality of users. Dependent claims 5 and 13 further describe receiving information regarding equipment usage. Dependent claims 6 and 14 further describe transmitting operational parameters for the equipment. Examiner understands these limitations to be insignificant extrasolution activity. (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Cf. Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191-192 (1981) ("[I]nsignificant post-solution activity will not transform an unpatentable principle in to a patentable process.”).
Furthermore, dependent claims 7 and 15 further disclose the use of an “artificial intelligence or machine learning algorithm” for analyzing an image. These limitations generally recite a process for utilizing a pre-existing software algorithm to identify features in a photograph. As such, these claims can reasonably be seen as the conventional application of well-known machine learning concepts to analyze data. It also amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, and merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The aforementioned claims also recite additional elements including a “user device” for transmitting and receiving data; and a “server” for receiving and analyzing image data and usage data. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and appear to be nothing more than generic computer components. Claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2358, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 134 S. Ct. at 2389, 110 USPQ2d at 1984.
Furthermore, looking at the elements individually and in combination, under Step 2A, Prong Two, the claims as a whole do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they fail to: improve the functioning of a computer or a technical field, apply the judicial exception in the treatment or prophylaxis of a disease, apply the judicial exception with a particular machine, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply the judicial exception beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Rather, the claims merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea(s), and/or add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (e.g. generic servers and user devices connected to a network).
Next, under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Simply put, as noted above, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer (or any other technology), and their collective functions are merely facilitated by generic computer implementation.
Additionally, pursuant to the requirement under Berkheimer, the following citations are provided to demonstrate that the additional elements, identified as extra-solution activity, amount to activities that are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362; OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
Thus, taken alone and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea), and are ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claims 4, 8, 12, and 16 are dependent on the aforementioned independent claims, and include all the limitations contained therein. These claims do not recite any additional technical elements, and simply disclose additional limitations that further limit the abstract idea with details regarding: the type of equipment (gym), and an intended characterization/result of the process (computational efficiency). Examiner further notes that enhanced computational efficiency is the inherent nature and purpose of AI and ML algorithms. Thus, the dependent claims merely provide additional non-structural and non-functional details that fail to meaningfully limit the claims or the abstract idea(s).
Therefore, claims 1-16 are not drawn to eligible subject matter, as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Kaleal (20220384027) in view of Anwade (20250225452).
Claims 1 and 9: Kaleal discloses a system and method comprising:
a) receiving an image of a piece of equipment and user data from a first user device (Paragraph 408; Figs. 28 and 32. The user captures an image of fitness equipment with the camera on their device. The information associated with the user and the equipment are received and analyzed by a platform on a server, and stored in a storage component.);
b) analyzing the image to identify information about the equipment (Paragraph 408. The equipment component of the platform can employ object recognition and image analysis techniques to determine information about the gym equipment.); and
c) transmitting the information about the equipment to a plurality of user devices (Paragraph 60; Fig. 1. The information is transmitted to a client device and a server.).
Kaleal does not appear to explicitly describe a method for retrieving volunteer user data from a portion of the plurality of user devices including a willingness to help with the equipment.
Anwade, however, discloses a method for retrieving volunteer user data from a portion of the plurality of user devices including a willingness to help with the equipment (Paragraph 20. The system receives a request for coaching from a user, calculates impact scores for each coach in a plurality of coaches, and displaying a subset of coaches that have the highest impact score.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to combine this feature of Anwade with those of Kaleal. One would have been motivated to do this in order to pair the user with an instructor who is able to provide the user with the assistance that they require for fitness success.
Claims 2 and 10: The Kaleal/Anwade combination discloses those limitations cited above. Anwade, however, further discloses a method comprising e1) transmitting a portion of the volunteer user data to the first user device, and/or e2) transmitting the user data to a portion of the plurality of user devices indicating a willingness to help with the equipment. (Paragraph 20. The impact scores for the coaches are transmitted to the user.).
The rationale for combining Anwade with Kaleal is articulated above and reincorporated herein.
Claims 3 and 11: The Kaleal/Anwade combination discloses those limitations cited above. Anwade, however, further discloses a method wherein the one or more servers are further configured to receive a rating regarding individual user devices in the portion of plurality of user devices. (Paragraphs 11 and 156. Ratings for each of the coaches are calculated and provided to the user.).
The rationale for combining Anwade with Kaleal is articulated above and reincorporated herein.
Claims 4 and 12: The Kaleal/Anwade combination discloses those limitations cited above. Kaleal, however, further discloses a method wherein the equipment is gym equipment. (Paragraph 408. The equipment in question is fitness equipment in a gym.).
Claims 5, 7-8, 13, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Kaleal/Anwade in view of Rothman (20180064992).
Claims 5 and 13: The Kaleal/Anwade combination discloses those limitations cited above. While Kaleal clearly describes a method in which the user’s workout routine is monitored (Paragraph 211), neither Kaleal nor Anwade explicitly disclose a method further comprising receiving information regarding the usage of the equipment (e.g., from the equipment as connected to a network) during the time period the first user device and/or a member of the portion of the plurality of user devices is proximal (e.g., within 5 feet) of the equipment.
Rothman, however, discloses a method further comprising receiving information regarding the usage of the equipment (e.g., from the equipment as connected to a network) during the time period the first user device and/or a member of the portion of the plurality of user devices is proximal (e.g., within 5 feet) of the equipment. (Fig. 1; Paragraphs 34 and 36-37. The user’s usage of the fitness equipment is monitored and transmitted to a coach on a remote device.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to combine this feature of Rothman with those of Kaleal/Anwade. One would have been motivated to do this in order to determine whether or not the fitness equipment is being used properly.
Claims 7 and 15: The Kaleal/Anwade combination discloses those limitations cited above, but does not appear to explicitly describe a method further comprising receiving information regarding the usage of the equipment (e.g., from the equipment as connected to a network) during the time period the first user device and/or a member of the portion of the plurality of user devices is proximal (e.g., within 5 feet) of the equipment.
Rothman, however, discloses a method further comprising receiving information regarding the usage of the equipment (e.g., from the equipment as connected to a network) during the time period the first user device and/or a member of the portion of the plurality of user devices is proximal (e.g., within 5 feet) of the equipment. (Paragraph 65. AI and machine learning are used to detect, track, and deduce useful information from the sensed image data collected when the user is using the fitness equipment.).
The rationale for combining Rothman with Kaleal/Anwade is articulated above and reincorporated herein.
Claims 8 and 16: The Kaleal/Anwade combination discloses those limitations cited above, but does not appear to explicitly describe a method wherein the method is characterized as having increased computational efficiency associated with matching the first user device to at least one user device in the portion of the plurality of user devices as compared to an otherwise identical system not comprising the image analysis.
Rothman, however, discloses a method wherein the method is characterized as having increased computational efficiency associated with matching the first user device to at least one user device in the portion of the plurality of user devices as compared to an otherwise identical system not comprising the image analysis. (Paragraphs 13 and 79. The system AI and ML creat an improved and more accurate capability to recognize objects (users and fitness equipment) in a field of view and transmit it a remote coach. The system also creates a less intrusive to the users and coaches. The ML incorporates facial recognition, voice recognition, exercise recognition, etc. and increases the efficiency of matching the user to the remote coach.).
The rationale for combining Rothman with Kaleal/Anwade is articulated above and reincorporated herein.
Examiner further notes that these claims do not provide additional structural or functional features of the system and method. Rather, they merely recite an intended result of the system by simply restating the inherent nature of AI or ML (enhanced computational efficiency and accuracy). As such, these limitations are afforded little to no patentable weight.
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Kaleal/Anwade in view of Wersland (20210128399), and in further view of Watterson (20130196822).
The Kaleal/Anwade combination discloses those limitations cited above. Kaleal further discloses a method for providing instructions to a user when they use an exercise machine (Paragraph 409), but does not appear to explicitly describe a method for transmission of operational parameters for the equipment to the equipment during the time period the first user device and/or a member of the portion of the plurality of user devices is proximal (e.g., within 5 feet) of the equipment.
Wersland, however, discloses a method for transmission of [operational instructions] for the equipment to the equipment during the time period the first user device and/or a member of the portion of the plurality of user devices is proximal (e.g., within 5 feet) of the equipment. (Paragraph 24. When the user approaches a piece of gym equipment, the user’s mobile device is detected by the gym equipment using near field communication (NFC). Once the NFC connection is established between the user device and the gym equipment (such as a treadmill), instructions for use of the equipment are transmitted to the app on the user’s device. The device and/or app can also communicate with the gym equipment directly (e.g. via Bluetooth).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to combine this feature of Wersland with those of Kaleal/Anwade. One would have been motivated to do this in order to provide specific instructions to users using specific equipment in a gym setting.
Finally, Watterson discloses a method for transmission of operational parameters for the equipment to the equipment when a user is using the exercise equipment. (Paragraph 77. Various sensors detect when a person is exercising on the gym equipment, and the system provides instructions to the person while they are exercising, and alters a setting of the exercise machine.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to combine this feature of Watterson with those of Kaleal/Anwade/Wersland. One would have been motivated to do this in order to assist a person that is exercising, as well as motivate them to continue to exercise (Watterson, Paragraph 77).
Relevant Prior Art
Though not cited in the above rejections, the following references are nevertheless deemed to be relevant to Applicant’s disclosures:
Cheng et al. (20150066526), directed to an exercise management service method.
Kim et al. (20230381591), directed to a method for providing customized exercise information based on motion tracking.
Koduri et al. (20150196805), directed to a fuzzy logic-based evaluation and feedback of exercise performance.
Butterworth et al. (2019029096), directed to a method for verifying exercise data.
Toth et al. (12350573), directed to a method for cross-training on exercise devices.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER BUSCH whose telephone number is (571)270-7953. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-7.
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, Waseem Ashraf can be reached at 571-270-3948. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER C BUSCH/Examiner, Art Unit 3621
/WASEEM ASHRAF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3621