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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 5, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant alleges the cited references do not disclose or suggest an "intensity metric that measures a relative difficulty of the exercise activity for the user based on prior data corresponding to a fitness level of the user and one or more factors of the physical environment" as recited in the independent claims as ameded. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner respectfully submits the combination of Canberk in view of Hogue clearly discloses the limitations in question. That is, Canberk in view of Hogue clearly discloses while the exercise tracking mode of operation is active (Canberk at FIGS. 4 and 8 generally, motion evaluation application 910 at [0084]-[0085] and [0110]-[0111] and [0124]-[0125]), displaying, via the display (Canberk FIGS. 1A-4, image displayed by optical assemblies 180A and 180B at [0058]-[0068]), one or more indications associated with an intensity metric corresponding to the exercise activity in the three-dimensional environment (Hogue, FIGS. 3A-L and [0039]-[0041] and [0066]-[0078] and velocity vector pace determination at [0078]-[0080] and FIGS. 6A-7 and [0145]-[0148] describing displaying pace over for elevation grade), wherein the intensity metric measures a relative difficulty of the exercise activity for the user based on the physical environment (Hogue, at [0033] and FIGS. 3A-L and [0039]-[0041] and [0066]-[0078] and [0101]-[0105] encouraging information when corresponding conditions trigger such as velocity vector change needing to be changed in response to the event trigger; and FIGS. 6A-7 and [0145]-[0150] describing displaying pace for elevation grade including current pace (e.g., intensity) data and displaying the virtual fitness partner pace, [0155]-[0158] and describing route determination and gradation tracking over time used for displaying information to the user).
As such, Examiner respectfully submits the references clearly teach the limitations in question. Therefore, these claims and all claims depending therefrom stand properly addressed and rejected below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 6-11, 14-19 and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Canberk et al., US 2023/0256297 A1 (hereinafter “Canberk”) in view of Hogue, US 2019/0311539 A1 (hereinafter “Hogue”).
Regarding claim 1, Canberk discloses a method (FIG. 8 generally, and [0109] flow chart 820 of method) comprising:
at an electronic device (FIGS. 1A-4, eyewear device 100, as part of a motion evaluation system 400 at [0065]) in communication with a display (FIGS. 1A-4, image displayed by optical assemblies 180A and 180B at [0058]-[0068]), one or more input devices (FIGS. 1A-4, user input device 491, e.g., touchpad 181 at [0035]-[0038]), and one or more cameras (FIGS. 1A-4 and cameras 114A and 114B):
detecting, via the one or more input devices (181), initiation of an exercise activity ([0110] activity is detected by input device, voice command, gesture input, motion etc.) associated with a user (see e.g., FIG. 6, user 602); of the electronic device (FIGS. 1A-4, eyewear device 100, as part of a motion evaluation system 400 at [0065]);
in response to detecting the initiation of the exercise activity, activating an exercise tracking mode of operation (FIGS. 4 and 8 generally, motion evaluation application 910 at [0084]-[0085] and [0110]-[0111] and [0124]-[0125]); and
while the exercise tracking mode of operation is active:
capturing, via the one or more cameras, one or more images of a physical environment (FIGS. 7A-8 and [0128] [0141] and [0162] describing capturing of the physical environment 600; and generally FIG. 6, physical environment 600 at [0105]); and
in accordance with detecting, in the one or more images, a feature of the physical environment (FIGS. 7A-8 and detection of hand shape 602b at [0140] and [0142]-[0145]), performing a first operation associated with the exercise tracking mode of operation (FIGS. 7A-8 and detecting a registered hit of the punching bag, thereby incrementing hits at [0145]-[0147]) and directed toward a three-dimensional environment presented at the electronic device (FIGS. 7A-8 and [0145]-[0150] illustrating various 3dimensionally visible graphics such as metric incrementation based on detecting the punching feature of a hand within the environment and the punching bag movement and gloves movement).
However, Canberk does not explicitly disclose while the exercise tracking mode of operation is active, displaying, via the display, one or more indications associated with an intensity metric corresponding to the exercise activity in the three-dimensional environment, wherein the intensity metric measures a relative difficulty of the exercise activity for the user based on the physical environment.
one or more indications associated with an intensity metric corresponding to the exercise activity in the three-dimensional environment (Hogue, FIGS. 3A-L and [0039]-[0041] and [0066]-[0078] and velocity vector pace determination at [0078]-[0080] and FIGS. 6A-7 and [0145]-[0148] describing displaying pace over for elevation grade), wherein the intensity metric measures a relative difficulty of the exercise activity for the user based on the physical environment (Hogue, at [0033] and FIGS. 3A-L and [0039]-[0041] and [0066]-[0078] and [0101]-[0105] encouraging information when corresponding conditions trigger such as velocity vector change needing to be changed in response to the event trigger; and FIGS. 6A-7 and [0145]-[0150] describing displaying pace for elevation grade including current pace (e.g., intensity) data and displaying the virtual fitness partner pace, [0155]-[0158] and describing route determination and gradation tracking over time used for displaying information to the user).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the exercise tracking device and method of Canberk to incorporate the grade and elevation determination through virtual fitness partner as disclosed by Hogue because the references are within the same field of endeavor, namely, fitness tracking using wearable devices. The motivation to combine these references would have been to improve exercise results by tracking and motivating the user (see Hogue at least at [0151] and [0182]). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 2, Canberk in view of Hogue discloses the method of claim 1 (see above), further comprising:
while the exercise tracking mode of operation is active, displaying, via the display, one or more indications associated with one or more fitness metrics corresponding to the exercise activity in the three-dimensional environment (FIGS. 7A-8 and detecting a registered hit of the punching bag, thereby incrementing hits at [0145]-[0147]);
while exercise tracking mode of operation is active and while the one or more indications are displayed in the three-dimensional environment, detecting a progression in the exercise activity (FIGS. 7A-8 and detecting a registered hit of the punching bag, thereby incrementing hits at [0145]-[0147]); and in response to detecting the progression in the exercise activity, updating display, via the display, of the one or more indications based on the progression in the exercise activity (FIGS. 7A-8 and detecting a registered hit of the punching bag, thereby incrementing hits at [0145]-[0147]).
Regarding claim 3, Canberk in view of Hogue discloses wherein detecting the feature of the physical environment includes detecting a physical object in the physical environment (Hogue [0057] detection of physical objects in the environment) that causes a pause of the exercise activity (Hogue [0104]-[0107] event trigger condition such as pause mode determined based on movement of the user or triggered based on any condition discussed therein including captured traffic data, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill) that is detected via the one or more input devices or the one or more cameras (Hogue [0057] and image sensor captures objects in environment like traffic signals, signs and cars), wherein the physical object includes at least one of a stop sign (Hogue [0057] stop sign), a traffic signal (Hogue [0057] traffic light), and a vehicle (hogue [0057] oncoming traffic).
Regarding claim 6, Canberk in view of Hogue discloses the method of claim 5 (see above), wherein detecting the feature of the physical environment includes detecting a change in elevation or grade of a surface of the physical environment that produces a change in the intensity metric (Hogue [0074]-[0078] and FIGS. 6A-7 and [0145]-[0148]).
Regarding claim 7, Canberk in view of Hogue discloses the method of claim 5 (see above), wherein performing the first operation includes updating the intensity metric corresponding to the exercise activity, including updating display of the one or more indications associated with the intensity metric in the three-dimensional environment (Hogue [0074]-[0078] and FIGS. 6A-7 and [0145]-[0150], will update virtual fitness partner accordingly).
Regarding claim 8, Canberk in view of Hogue discloses the method of claim 7 (see above), wherein updating the intensity metric corresponding to the exercise activity includes: in accordance with a determination that the feature of the physical environment corresponds to a decrease in the intensity metric because the feature of the physical environment will cause the relative difficulty of the exercise activity to decrease below a threshold difficulty for the user ([0034] [0074]-[0078] and [0118]-[0119] and FIGS. 6A-7 and [0145]-[0148] describing increasing the pace, threshold may be previously set or determinable on the fly based on goal set pace and environment), displaying, via the display, a user interface object prompting the user to adjust one or more characteristics of the exercise activity for increasing the relative difficulty of the exercise activity in the three-dimensional environment ([0034] [0074]-[0078] and [0118]-[0119] and FIGS. 6A-7 and [0145]-[0148] describing increasing the pace).
Regarding claim 9, it is similar in scope to claim 1 above, the only difference being claim 9 is directed to an electronic device (FIGS. 1A-4, eyewear device 100, as part of a motion evaluation system 400 at [0065]) comprising: one or more processors ([0054] and 422, 432); memory (FIG. 4, and 434); and one or more programs stored in the memory and configured to be executed by the one or more processors ([0168]-[0169]), the one or more programs including instructions for performing a method of claim 1 (See above). Therefore, claim 9 is similarly analyzed and rejected as claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, it is similar in scope to claim 2 above. Therefore, claim 10 is similarly analyzed and rejected as claim 2.
Regarding claim 11, it is similar in scope to claim 3 above. Therefore, claim 11 is similarly analyzed and rejected as claim 3.
Regarding claim 14, it is similar in scope to claim 6 above. Therefore, claim 14 is similarly analyzed and rejected as claim 6.
Regarding claim 15, it is similar in scope to claim 7 above. Therefore, claim 15 is similarly analyzed and rejected as claim 7.
Regarding claim 16, it is similar in scope to claim 8 above. Therefore, claim 16 is similarly analyzed and rejected as claim 8.
Regarding claim 17, it is similar in scope to claim 1 above, the only difference being claim 17 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable storage medium (FIG. 4, and 434 and [0168]-[0169])storing one or more programs ([0168]-[0169]), the one or more programs comprising instructions, which when executed by one or more processors ([0054] and 422, 432) of an electronic device (FIGS. 1A-4, eyewear device 100, as part of a motion evaluation system 400 at [0065]), cause the electronic device to perform a method of claim 1 (see above). Therefore, claim 17 is similarly analyzed and rejected as claim 1.
Regarding claim 18, it is similar in scope to claim 2 above. Therefore, claim 18 is similarly analyzed and rejected as claim 2.
Regarding claim 19, it is similar in scope to claim 3 above. Therefore, claim 19 is similarly analyzed and rejected as claim 3.
Regarding claim 22, it is similar in scope to claim 6 above. Therefore, claim 22 is similarly analyzed and rejected as claim 6.
Regarding claim 23, it is similar in scope to claim 7 above. Therefore, claim 23 is similarly analyzed and rejected as claim 7.
Regarding claim 24, it is similar in scope to claim 8 above. Therefore, claim 24 is similarly analyzed and rejected as claim 8.
Claims 4, 12, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Canberk in view of Hogue further in view of Galasso, US 2020/0357300 A1 (hereinafter “Galasso”).
Regarding claim 4, Canberk in view of Hogue discloses the method of claim 1 (see above).
However, Canberk in view of Hogue does not explicitly disclose wherein: detecting the feature of the physical environment includes detecting a shoe worn on a foot of the user; and performing the first operation includes displaying an indication of a shoe life associated with the shoe in the three-dimensional environment.
In the same field of endeavor, Galasso discloses a virtual reality system ([0020]) wherein: detecting the feature of the physical environment includes detecting a shoe worn on a foot of the user (FIG. 11, and [0143]); and performing the first operation includes displaying an indication of a shoe life associated with the shoe in the three-dimensional environment (FIG. 11 and [0143]).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the exercise tracking device and method of Canberk in view of Hogue to incorporate the exercising tracking and end of life of equipment indication as disclosed by Galasso because the references are within the same field of endeavor, namely, exercising tracking systems and methods. The motivation to combine these references would have been to improve real world performance with proper equipment selection (see Galasso at least at [0142]). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 12, it is similar in scope to claim 4 above. Therefore, claim 14 is similarly analyzed and rejected as claim 4.
Regarding claim 20, it is similar in scope to claim 4 above. Therefore, claim 20 is similarly analyzed and rejected as claim 4.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hessel et al., US 2024/0207679 A1: Abstract and FIGS. 2A-4D describing intensity and effort metrics and expected outputs measured and displayed to the user of the device;
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARVESH J. NADKARNI whose telephone number is (571)270-7562. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-5PM M-F.
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, Benjamin C. Lee can be reached at (571)272-2963. 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.
/SARVESH J NADKARNI/Examiner, Art Unit 2629
Prosecution Insights