DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-25 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is in response to the amendment filed on 2/20/2026.
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 1-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Step 1:
Claims 1-10 & 21-25 are directed to a method (i.e., a process); and Claims 11-20 are directed to a CRM (i.e., a manufacture). Accordingly, claims 1-25 are all within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2A - Prong One:
Regarding Prong One of Step 2A, the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1). An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) certain methods of organizing human activity, b) mental processes, and/or c) mathematical concepts. MPEP 2106.04(a).
Representative independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 1 recites:
A method of adjusting a periodized workout regimen, the method comprising:
receiving, by a user interface, one or more workout inputs provided by a user;
generating the periodized workout regimen including a plurality of assigned workouts and rest days based on the one or more workout inputs;
dynamically altering at least one assigned workout of the plurality of assigned workouts based on a physical readiness indicator of the user prior to the user performing the at least one assigned workout, wherein the physical readiness indicator is based on a comparison of heart rate variability data of the user with one or more threshold values;
displaying the at least one assigned workout that was dynamically altered to the user; and
periodically updating the periodized workout regimen based on historical data relating to the user.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute “methods of organizing human activity” because receiving workout inputs from a user, generating workout outputs from the inputs, altering the workout outputs based on user data are associated with managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. For example, but for the system, this claim encompasses a person facilitating data access, receiving data, and outputting data in the manner described in the identified abstract idea. The Examiner notes that “method of organizing human activity” includes a person’s interaction with a computer – see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Accordingly, independent claim 1 and analogous independent claims 11 recite at least one abstract idea.
Furthermore, dependent claims 2-10 & 12-25 further narrow the abstract idea described in the independent claims. Claims 2, 4-6, 12, 14-16, & 23 recites determining physical readiness indicator using heart rate data, claims 3 & 13 recites obtaining heart rate data and calculating the heart rate variability data, claims 7-9 & 17-19 recites adjusting output parameters to alter the workout outputs, claims 10 & 20 recites periodically reassessing the readiness indicator and adjusting the workout output; Claim 21 & 24 recites workout inputs and historical data, Claims 22 & 25 recites dynamically generating the workout regimen based on training goals. These limitations only serve to further limit the abstract idea and hence, are directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent claim 1 and analogous independent claim 11, even when considered individually and as an ordered combination.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2A - Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted at MPEP §2106.04(II)(A)(2), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.” MPEP §2106.05(I)(A).
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted at least one abstract idea recited in the claim are as follows (where the bolded portions are the “additional limitations” while the underlined portions continue to represent the at least one “abstract idea”):
A method of adjusting a periodized workout regimen, the method comprising:
receiving, by a user interface, one or more workout inputs provided by a user;
generating the periodized workout regimen including a plurality of assigned workouts and rest days based on the one or more workout inputs;
dynamically altering at least one assigned workout of the plurality of assigned workouts based on a physical readiness indicator of the user prior to the user performing the at least one assigned workout, wherein the physical readiness indicator is based on a comparison of heart rate variability data of the user with one or more threshold values;
displaying the at least one assigned workout that was dynamically altered to the user; and
periodically updating the periodized workout regimen based on historical data relating to the user.
For the following reasons, the Examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of the user interface and displaying the workout outputs to the user, the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely using computers as tools to perform the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole with the abstract idea, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea. MPEP §2106.05(I)(A) and §2106.04(II)(A)(2).
For these reasons, independent claim 1 and analogous independent claim 11 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, the claims recite at least one abstract idea.
The remaining dependent claim limitations not addressed above fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as set forth below:
Claims 3 and 13: These claims recite using a heart rate measurement device to collect heart rate data which amounts to do no more than generally link use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use without altering or affecting how the at least one abstract idea is performed (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)). These claims also recite a processor which amounts to merely using computers as tools to perform the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Claim 11: This claim recites that the system includes a viewer that sends requests to retrieve exam images and displays such retrieved images on a display device according to the workflow which amounts to merely using computers as tools to perform the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). These limitations also amount to mere instructions to apply the above-noted at least one abstract idea (Id.).
Thus, taken alone, any additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to at least one abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, representative independent claim 10 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for reasons the same as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
As discussed above, regarding the additional limitations of the user interface and displaying the workout outputs to the user, the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely using computers as tools to perform the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
The dependent claims also do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the dependent claims do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Therefore, claims 1-25 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-20 & 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahmed (US20150251074) in view of Moore (US20210345896).
As per claim 1, Ahmed teaches a method of adjusting one or more workout outputs, the method comprising:
receiving, by a user interface, one or more workout inputs provided by a user (para. 195: user input received by system);
generating the periodized workout regimen including a plurality of assigned workouts and rest days based on the one or more workout inputs (para. 156, 171, 190: based on input health parameters system generates workout data and rest recommendations);
dynamically altering at least one assigned workout of the plurality of assigned workouts based on a physical readiness indicator of the user prior to the user performing the at least one assigned workout, wherein the physical readiness indicator is based on a comparison of heart rate variability data of the user (Fig. 12; para. 156, 173, 175, 190: system updates recommendation for workout to user based on recovery score, heart rate variability is used including a baseline HRV value; system collects HRV data and determines score; based on threshold system assigns a physical readiness indicator for user);
displaying the at least one assigned workout that was dynamically altered to the user (para. 156: workout data output to user); and
periodically updating the periodized workout regimen based on historical data relating to the user (para. 144: system uses continuous data to computes, stores and displays one or more indicators or scores relating to the user's body, health and physical training).
Ahmed does not expressly teach wherein the physical readiness indicator is based on a comparison of heart rate variability data of the user with one or more threshold values.
Moore, however, teaches to monitoring and scoring, comprising, collecting, by one or more sensors, sensor data measuring a user's heart beat activity over time, analyzing the sensor data to measure the inter-beat intervals of the heart beat activity to store Heart Rate Variability (HRV) data (abstract). Moore further teaches to the HRV system analyzes the updated HRV score to determine if the latest calculated HRV score is above or below a threshold value or within a range that is indicated as desired for the user (para. 146-147).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the aforementioned features in Moore with Ahmed based on the motivation of describes improved techniques for obtaining usable HRV data using generally available sensors (Moore – para. 39).
As per claim 2, Ahmed and Moore teach the method of claim 1. Ahmed teaches further comprising determining the physical readiness indicator (164: recovery score determined using heart rate variability data).
As per claim 3, Ahmed and Moore teach the method of claim 2. Ahmed teaches further comprising obtaining the heart rate variability data from a heart rate measurement device comprising a heart rate sensor operatively coupled to a processor configured to calculate the heart rate variability data from data collected by the heart rate sensor (para. 7: heart rate sensor and processor obtain user physiological data).
As per claim 4, Ahmed and Moore teach the method of claim 2. Ahmed does not expressly teach wherein the determining the physical readiness indicator of the user further comprises: comparing the heart rate variability data with one or more threshold values.
Moore, however, teaches to monitoring and scoring, comprising, collecting, by one or more sensors, sensor data measuring a user's heart beat activity over time, analyzing the sensor data to measure the inter-beat intervals of the heart beat activity to store Heart Rate Variability (HRV) data (abstract). Moore further teaches to the HRV system analyzes the updated HRV score to determine if the latest calculated HRV score is above or below a threshold value or within a range that is indicated as desired for the user (para. 146-147).
The motivations to combine the above mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 5, Ahmed and Moore teach the method of claim 4. Ahmed teaches wherein the determining the physical readiness indicator of the user comprises normalizing the heart rate variability data to a numerical scale (para. 151-153, 165: HRV data normalized and used for determining recovery score).
As per claim 6, Ahmed and Moore teach the method of claim 4. Ahmed teaches wherein determining the physical readiness indicator comprises assigning the heart rate variability data to a first physical readiness indicator of a set of two or more physical readiness indicators based on the comparison of the heart rate variability data with the one or more threshold values (Fig. 12; para. 173-175: system collects HRV data and determines score; based on threshold system assigns a physical readiness indicator for user).
As per claim 7, Ahmed and Moore teach the method of claim 1. Ahmed teaches wherein dynamically altering the at least one assigned workout comprises adjusting one or more output parameters (para. 156, 175, 190: system updates recommendation for workout to user based on recovery score).
As per claim 8, Ahmed and Moore teach the method of claim 7. Ahmed teaches wherein at least one of the one or more output parameters comprises a workout intensity (para. 156, 175, 190: system updates recommendation for workout to user based on recovery score).
As per claim 9, Ahmed and Moore teach the method of claim 7. Ahmed teaches wherein the adjusting at least one of the one or more output parameters comprises decreasing the at least one of the one or more output parameters (para. 156, 175, 190: system updates recommendation for workout to user based on recovery score including lowering intensity).
As per claim 10, Ahmed and Moore teach the method of claim 1. Ahmed teaches further comprising periodically reassessing the physical readiness indicator and dynamically altering at least one additional assigned workout of the plurality of assigned workouts accordingly (para. 144, 156, 175, 190: system updates recommendation for workout to user based on recovery score; various scores are updated in real-time and continuously).
Claims 11-20 recite substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in claims 1-10, and, as such, are rejected for similar reasons as given above.
As per claim 23, Ahmed and Moore teach the method of claim 2. Ahmed does not expressly teach wherein the determining the physical readiness indicator of the user comprises directly comparing the heart rate variability data of the user with the one or more threshold values.
Moore, however, teaches to monitoring and scoring, comprising, collecting, by one or more sensors, sensor data measuring a user's heart beat activity over time, analyzing the sensor data to measure the inter-beat intervals of the heart beat activity to store Heart Rate Variability (HRV) data (abstract). Moore further teaches to the HRV system analyzes the updated HRV score to determine if the latest calculated HRV score is above or below a threshold value or within a range that is indicated as desired for the user (para. 146-147).
The motivations to combine the above mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 24, Ahmed and Moore teach the method of claim 1. Ahmed teaches wherein the historical data includes one or more of historical heart rate variability data, historical athletic performance data, and historical progress data of the user (para. 187: historical data can be used to compare against present data).
As per claim 25, Ahmed and Moore teach the method of claim 1. Ahmed teaches wherein the historical data includes historical athletic performance data of the user (para. 187: historical exercise data), and wherein the periodically updating the periodized workout regimen includes reducing an intensity of the plurality of assigned workouts in response to the historical athletic performance data failing to meet one or more expected values (para. 184-187: system can provide recommendations to adjust exercise routine based on analysis of qualitative health parameters and feedback from previous exercise routines).
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahmed (US20150251074) in view of Moore (US20210345896) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Rose (US20210050086A1).
As per claim 21, Ahmed and Moore teach the method of claim 1 but do not expressly teach wherein the one or more workout inputs comprise training goals of the user including one or more of a desired training frequency, a desired training time, and a goal functional threshold power (FTP) of the user.
Rose, however, teaches to a user inputting goals for their exercise including training frequency and time and where the system generates a customized training plan using those goals (para. 327-328).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the aforementioned features in Rose with Ahmed and Moore based on the motivation of generating an optimised workout plan for an individual based on the individual's genetic, physiological, behavioural and lifestyle data (Rose – para. 1).
As per claim 22, Ahmed, Moore, and Rose teach the method of claim 21. Ahmed and Moore do not expressly teach further comprising dynamically generating the periodized workout regimen based on the training goals of the user.
Rose, however, teaches to a user inputting goals for their exercise including training frequency and time and where the system generates a customized training plan using those goals (para. 327-328).
The motivations to combine the above mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 21, and incorporated herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection on pages 9-11 in regards to claims 1-25 have been considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues:
The Claims recite a specific manner of generating an individualized and periodized workout regimen that provides improvements over prior art systems and integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The Examiner however asserts that that there is no indication here that the claimed invention addresses a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer technology; the Applicant does not provide adequate evidence or technical reasoning how the process improves the efficiency of the computer, as opposed to the efficiency of the process, or of any other technological aspect of the computer. Further, the problems the invention is attempting to solve are “incorporating HRV insights and determining real-time workout adjustments using HRV insights”. (citing Spec. pg. 1). These are not technological problems and the solution provided here has not been described or claimed as anything more than a generic use of existing technology performing based, purely conventional functions of a computer. Therefore, the Examiner asserts that there are no additional limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and the claims as a whole are not directed significantly more than an abstract idea.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection on pages 12-16 in regards to claims 1-25 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Seppanen (US20200261011) teaches to determining a training load distribution of a user is provided. Heart rate is continuously measured by a heart rate sensor. An aerobic training effect and load are calculated using intensity values and divided into categories of Aerobic Low and Aerobic High. An anaerobic training effect and load are calculated using determined characteristics related to high intensity periods of an exercise.
Kosofsky (US20210217508) teaches to novel tools and techniques for providing graded exercise therapy. A system includes one or more sensors coupled to a patient, and a host machine coupled to the one or more sensors. The host machine includes a processor, and a computer readable medium in communication with the processor having encoded thereon a set of instructions executable by the processor to establish a graded exercise therapy regime for the patient, determine one or more physiologic data targets for the patient, obtain a first set of physiologic data of the patient during the graded exercise therapy regime, and update the one or more physiologic data targets based, at least in part, on the first set of physiologic data.
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 Jonathan K Ng whose telephone number is (571)270-7941. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM - 5 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, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-7949. 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.
/Jonathan Ng/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619