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 .
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.
Claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C §112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 10 recites presenting the load and hormonal response values “when the altered and unaltered hormonal response values collectively define the targeted hormonal response.” It is unclear whether “collectively define” requires the combined values merely to constitute a predicted hormonal-response profile or requires those values to satisfy an independently established target response.
These interpretations impose different requirements on the presenting step: the former permits presenting the resulting predicted profile, whereas the latter conditions presentation on satisfaction of a target. The limitation does not make clear which relationship is required or, under the latter interpretation, what constitutes satisfaction of the target.
Consequently, the condition governing presentation and the scope of the claimed method are unclear. Applicant is required to clarify the relationship between the combined hormonal response values and the target hormonal response values.
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 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1: Claim 1 recites a method constituting a process. Claim 10 recites a system constituting a machine. Both satisfy the statutory-category requirement.
Step 2A, Prong One: Mathematical concepts: Both claims recite determining numerical hormonal-response values from load values and following alteration of a selected load, determining subsequent altered load and hormonal-response values. Read in light of the specification’s discussion of Fig. 3 and dynamic recalculation, these determinations encompass mathematical calculations of response values from numerical inputs. The disclosed calculation uses a load value and a preceding hormonal-response value to determine a subsequent response. This disclosure explains the computational meaning of the claimed determinations without importing the particular recursive embodiment into the claims. The identified determining limitations therefore recite an abstract idea within the mathematical-concepts grouping.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Practical Application: The additional elements include a load sensor, processor, display, an user interface; claim 10 additionally specifies communicative coupling. The sensor supplies calculation inputs, the processor executes the calculations, and the display presents the results. The before-and-after presentation permits evaluation of the revised plan does not require implementation of that plan or production of the targeted response in a person. The asserted planning and visualization benefits concern evaluating the calculated information; the claims do not specify an improvement to sensing, computer operation, or display technology. Considered individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not integrate the mathematical calculations into a practical application.
Step 2B: Significantly more: The processor’s execution of the calculations amounts to computer implementation of the exception. The remaining sensor, communication, and display functions provide inputs and communicate results. The specification describes the additional hardware as broadly interchangeable implementations: the load sensor may comprise a smartwatch, fitness band, or smart ring; the processor may comprise a microprocessor, microcontroller, or other processing circuit; and the display may comprise an LCD, LED, or OLED screen in a smartphone, tablet or laptop. The processor and display may be integrated into a mobile device or distributed between server-associated processing and mobile display. These disclosures support finding that the claims do not require specialized hardware for acquiring inputs, executing instructions, and presenting information. On that evidentiary basis, the ordered combination does not provide an inventive implementation beyond acquiring data, performing the calculations, and displaying their results. Accordingly, claims 1 and 10 do not amount to significantly more than the identified exception.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 7-8 & 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurunmaki et al. (US 2009/0069156) in view of Nissila et al. (US 2023/0226412) and further in view of Nasedkin (AU 2014276699).
…measuring, by load sensor, load values…
E.G. Kurunmaki teaches sensor-based acquisition of exercise information and determination of training loads, including loads derived from heart-rate measurements, intensity, and duration ([0124]-[0126], [0136], [0141], [0145]).
…receiving a sequence of load values for determining corresponding physiological effects…
E.G. via the disclosed training history including session loads and durations, and completed and planned sessions used to calculate cumulative and future training loads ([0063], [0066], [0074], [0079]-[0085]).
…presenting training information on a user interface…”
E.G. via the disclosed system displaying exercise-load information and an updated training program, including a graphical training template and the current session’s training-effect value ([0122]-[0123], [0141]-[0145]).
…altering a load within a sequence and determining subsequent altered loads…
E.G. via the disclosed system that recalculates following days’ training and iteratively adjusts planned sessions, including reducing workload or inserting rest, to maintain a target training-load range ([0069], [0077], [0083]-[0090], [0106]-[0111]).
…using earlier and subsequent loads in a target-directed plan…
E.G. via the disclosed sliding-window calculation including completed and upcoming sessions and adjusting future training toward an optimal cumulative load ([0084]-[0085], [0099] & [0128]). This supports retaining historical inputs while revising future loads, but does not expressly establish the claimed combined display of earlier and later hormonal responses.
Nissila teaches the hormonal response assessment:
Determining biochemical responses to physical routines, including testosterone, cortisol, or their ratio, and calculating corresponding response values using training impulses and biochemical measurements ([0080]-[0087], [0094]-[0100]).
Comparing the calculated response values to recommend a physical routine suited to the user ([0101]-[0102]), with experimental examples associating training impulses and hormonal responses ([0113]-[0117], Tables I-II).
Nasedkin further teaches physiological-state-based planning and adjustment:
Modifying a prospective training program using functional-state assessments and workload history ([0033], [0051]-[0053]).
Using hormonal-system assessments to influence training-target selection and adjusting training toward a body-system norm, including avoiding maximum velocity when the hormonal system is below its norm ([0060]-[0063]).
Displaying the training program by day, week, moth, or in its entirety, including tentative future targets that may change based on subsequent assessments and workload measurements [0049].
It would have been obvious to incorporate Nissilia’s hormonal-response assessment and Nasedkin’s physiological-state-based adjustments into Kurunmaki’s adaptive training planning to personalize exercise recommendations according to the user’s physiological response and readiness and to guide training toward an appropriate physiological state and individualize subsequent loads according to physiological response. Using the established load-hormone relationship to update the associated responses, and presenting those responses with the retained earlier values, would provide a consistent basis for evaluating whether the revised plan meets the selected hormonal target.
Claim 7.
…hormonal response associated with an anabolic hormone level, catabolic hormone level, or their ratio:
E.G. Nissila teaches assessing exercise responses using testosterone-to-cortisol ratio ([0085], [0098]).
It would have been obvious to use these disclosed hormonal indicators in Kurunmaki’s adaptive training planning to adjust training according to the user’s hormonal response.
Claim 8.
…altered and unaltered load values associated with TRIMP…
E.G. Kurunmaki teaches using TRIMP to quantify individual-session and cumulative training loads ([0124]-[0126]) and adjusting subsequent session loads ([0083]-[0090]).
Applying Kurunmaki’s disclosed TRIMP metric to both original and revised loads would provide a consistent basis for comparing the loads and calculating their cumulative training effect.
Claim 10.
…corresponding planning functions…
E.G. via the disclosed teachings and combination rationale discussed for claim 1 which are incorporated insofar as they address the corresponding functions of claim 10.
…load sensor, communicatively coupled processor, and display:
E.G. Kurunmaki teaches a physiological sensor, processor, and display configured to obtain exercise measurements, process training information and present the training program ([0141]-[0145]_.
It would have been obvious to configure Kurunmaki’s disclosed processor and display to perform the combined planning functions discussed for claim 1, thereby providing an integrated system for processing exercise measurements and presenting hormone-informed training adjustments.
Claim 11.
…processor and display associated with a mobile computing device…
E.G. Nasadkin teaches mobile-device user-interface functionality and execution of assessment and training-adjustment processing on the mobile device ([0024]-[0025]), [0031]).
It would have been obvious to implement the combined planning system using Nasedkin’s mobile arrangement to provide portable processing and presentation of training recommendations and adjustments.
Claim 12.
…processor associated with a server arrangement and display associated with a mobile computing device…
E.G. Nasedkin teaches processing on cloud computer 51 with user-interface functionality on mobile device 20 ([0024]-[0025]).
It would been obvious to employ this disclosed architecture in the combined system to perform training-planning calculations remotely while providing mobile access to the resulting recommendations and adjustments.
Claim 13.
…load sensor comprising at least one smartwatch, fitness band, or smart ring…
E.G. Nissila teaches obtaining exercise measurements using a physical sensor implemented in a smartwatch ([0061]-[0062])
It would have been obvious to use Nissila’s smartwatch implementation for the combined system’s load-sensing function to obtain exercise measurements through a wearable device.
Claim(s) 2-5 & 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurunmaki et al. (US 2009/0069156) in view of Nissila et al. (US 2023/0226412) and Nasedkin (AU 2014276699), and further in view of Holmes et al. (US 2011/0093249).
…normalized line graph depicting corresponding load and hormonal-responsive values together as points:
E.G. Holmes teaches plotting normalized assay response against normalized concentration using line graphs ([0067]-[0068], [0562]; Figs. 33-35), and separately teaches graphically presenting hormonal responses to a physiological challenge ([0536]; Figs. 28A-28B).
It would have been obvious to apply Holme’s normalized paired-variable presentation to the combined training system’s altered and unaltered load/response pairs, representing each pair by point whose coordinates express the respective normalized values. This would permit direct comparison of hormonal responses as a function of load despite their differing units and scales. The modification applies a disclosed graphical technique to corresponding numerical pairs without hanging the underlying response calculations.
Claim 3.
…plurality of points based on the load sequence, with subsequent points connected by a solid or dotted line:
E.G. Holmes teaches solid, dashed, and dotted response curves ([0067], [0562]; Fig. 33). Kurunmaki organizes completed and planned training sessions in a sequence ([0083]-[0085]).
It would have been obvious to connect the proposed load/response points in training-sequence order using a solid line to communicate progression between successive events. This combines Kurunmaki session ordering with Holmes’s line-graph presentation, predictably allowing the user to follow the sequence.
Claim 4.
…solid line representing a past load event…
E.G. Kurunmaki distinguishes completed training sessions from upcoming sessions from upcoming sessions ([0084]-[0085]).
E.G. Holmes teaches using solid and other styles in normalized response graphs ([0067], [0562]; Fig. 33).
It would have been obvious to use a solid line between successive load/hormonal-response points corresponding to completed, measured events to distinguish historical results from prospective portions of the training plan. This applies Holmes’s graphical differentiation technique to the event categories already recognized by Kurunmaki.
Claim 5.
…dotted line representing a future load event…
E.G. Kurunmaki includes upcoming training sessions ([0084]-[0085])
E.G. Nasedkin identifies tentative future training targets subject to subsequent assessment [0049].
E.G. Holmes teaches dotted-line presentation in normalized response graphs ([0067], [0562]; Fig. 33).
It would have been obvious to use dotted connections for prospective load/hormonal-response points to distinguish planned values awaiting measurement from completed-event measurements, allowing the user to recognize which portions of the plan remain prospective.
Claim 14.
…user interface comprising a normalized line graph representing each corresponding load/hormonal-response pair together as a point.
E.G. the Holmes teachings and proposed graphical modification discussed for claim 2 apply equally to this additional system limitation ([0067]-[0068], [0536], [0562]; Figs 28A-28B, 33-35).
Configuring Kurunmaki’s processor and display ([0141]-[0145]) to generate that presentation would provide the same direct visual comparison of normalized load and hormonal-response pairs described for claim 2.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 & 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art of record fails to teach or suggest, in the claimed combination, a normalized line graph whose endpoint representing the targeted hormonal response and corresponds to an altered or unaltered hormonal response value associated with the last load value in the sequence; and a processor configured to determine a first hormonal response value using a first load value and determine a second hormonal response value using both a subsequent second load value and the first hormonal response value as inputs.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Barbour (AU 2003/247336).
Barbour is pertinent to displaying normalized physiological measurements before, during and after a physiological change/challenge. It does not establish the claimed exercise-load/hormonal-response pairing or sequential hormonal-response calculation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICOLE F JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5040. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-5:00pm EST.
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, David Hamaoui can be reached at 571-270-5625. 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.
/NICOLE F JOHNSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights