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 Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: the term “comprising” in line 1, needs to be changed to “further comprising”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: the term “comprising” in line 1, needs to be changed to “further comprising”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: the term “comprising” in line 1, needs to be changed to “further comprising”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: the term “comprises” in line 1, needs to be changed to “further comprises”. 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.
Claims 3-4, 7, 16 and 18 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.
Claim 3 is 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. Claim 3 recites: “The instrumented handle of claim 1 comprising a load cell”. However, it is unclear whether “a load cell” is part of or in addition to “at least one sensor” recited in claim 1, upon which claim 3 depends. Further clarification and appropriate corrections are respectfully requested.
Claim 4 is 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. Claim 4 recites: “The instrumented handle of claim 1, wherein the at least one sensor comprises an accelerometer and a gyroscope…the at least one rowing metric comprising the acceleration value and the rotation value”. The phrase “at least one sensor” implies that the instrumented handle can include only one sensor and the “at least one rowing metric” implies that it can be only one rowing metric. As such, it is unclear how one sensor can comprise an accelerometer and a gyroscope and how one rowing metric can comprise an acceleration value and the rotation value. Further clarification and appropriate corrections are respectfully requested.
Claim 7 is 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. Claim 7 recites: “The instrumented handle of claim 6 comprising a load cell”. However, it is unclear whether “a load cell” is part of or in addition to “at least one sensor” recited in claim 1, upon which claim 7 indirectly depends. Further clarification and appropriate corrections are respectfully requested.
Claim 16 is 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. Claim 16 recites: “wherein the instrumented handle comprises a load cell”. However, it is unclear whether “a load cell” is part of or in addition to “at least one sensor” recited in claim 14, upon which claim 16 depends. Further clarification and appropriate corrections are respectfully requested.
Claim 18 is 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. Claim 18 recites: “The system of claim 14, wherein the at least one sensor comprises an accelerometer and a gyroscope…the at least one rowing metric comprising the acceleration value and the rotation value”. The phrase “at least one sensor” implies that the instrumented handle can include only one sensor and the “at least one rowing metric” implies that it can be only one rowing metric. As such, it is unclear how one sensor can comprise an accelerometer and a gyroscope and how one rowing metric can comprise an acceleration value and the rotation value. Further clarification and appropriate corrections are respectfully requested.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite at least one step or instruction for observation, evaluation or judgement of rower data which are grouped as mental processes under the 2019 PEG and/or managing interactions between people (competitors on rowing machines), which are grouped under certain methods of organizing human activity.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Each of the independent claims 1, 9 and 14, but for a handle with a printed circuit board having at least one sensor and at least one processor (a first processor, a second processor), a memory device and a server, which are considered additional elements, involve receiving data characterizing a row motion, generating rower data characterizing at least one rowing metric, transmitting the rower data to provide an update to an application, updating the application, generating a status message based on the update and transmitting the status message, which involve observation, evaluation and judgement which are grouped under mental processes and can be performed in the human mind (with or without pen and paper) and managing interactions between people. As such, the independent claims recite an abstract idea. Further the dependent claims 2-8, 10-13 and 15-20 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, 9 and 14 (and their respective dependent Claims) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the additional elements (i.e., a handle with a printed circuit board having at least one sensor (accelerometer, gyroscope, load cell) and at least one processor (a first processor and a second processor), a handle attachment component, a coupler, a vibration actuator, a memory device, a server, and display), 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 handle with a printed circuit board having at least one sensor (accelerometer, gyroscope, load cell) and at least one processor (a first processor and a second processor), a handle attachment component, a coupler, a vibration actuator, a memory device, a server, and display, are generically recited computer elements or conventional (exercise) devices or their parts, 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, 9 and 14 (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 certain methods of organizing human activity) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer (e.g., at least one processor (first processor and a second processor), 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, 9 and 14 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
Accordingly, independent Claims 1, 9 and 14 (and their respective dependent claims) are each directed to an abstract idea under 2019 PEG.
Step 2B
None of Claims 1-20 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 handle with a printed circuit board having at least one sensor (accelerometer, gyroscope, load cell) and at least one processor (a first processor and a second processor), a handle attachment component, a coupler, a vibration actuator, a memory device, a server, and display.
The above-identified additional elements are generically claimed computer components or are conventional exercise device or their 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, ¶ [0039]-[0045], the claimed terms at least one processor, a memory and a display, 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 processor or mobile device. 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 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 method, system and a machine-readable storage medium of Claims 1-20 are directed to applying an abstract idea (e.g., mental process or Certain methods of organizing human activity) 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 1-20 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, 9 and 14 (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 1-20 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 1-20 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Accordingly, Claims 1-20 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Smith et al. (US 2019/0351283 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Smith discloses an apparatus comprising: a memory device storing instructions (¶ [45], [47], i.e., server including storage with software); and at least one processor communicatively coupled to the memory device (¶ [45], [47], i.e., server including processors) and configured to execute the instructions to:
receive rower data from an instrumented handle (301, ¶ [118]), the rower data characterizing rower metrics (¶ [19], [45], [47]-[48], [67], [69], [74], [173], [177]-[178], the rowing machine can have sensors (i.e., load cells, Hall effect sensors, optical sensors, and the sensors can be located on or embedded in the handle to measure force, speed, position, acceleration, heart rate), to provide input to the controller or provide rowing performance data to the server or to the rower or both, the handle can have a built-in rower interface which serves as (or is part of) a participation device, for controlling the rowing experience, among other things. The server can receive information from participation devices. For instance, the server can receive data about rowing motion from participant devices);
generate data for an application (i.e., rowing app, ¶ [49]) based on the rower data (¶ [19], [67], [69], [74], [173], [177], i.e., rower data including: applied force, position, speed, acceleration, heart rate, travel direction, rowing motion, 500 split meters, instantaneous power, average power, stroke rate, etc. The data can be used to help coach the rower to improve upon his/her performance. The server can modify the rowing motion data that it receives before storing or relaying the data to participation devices);
provide an update to the application based on the data (Fig. 1, ¶ [47], [49], [62], [69]-[70], [74], [78], [178], [188], the rowing app, in connection with the server, can synthesize the rower’s performance data and provide coaching tips and advice);
generate a status message (i.e., coaching tips, or user’s ranking in a race, is considered a status message) based on the update to the application, the status message characterizing a change in a metric of a user, and transmit the status message to the instrumented handle based on the update to the application (¶ [45], [47]-[49], [53], [69]-[70], [72]-[78], [80]-[81], [84], [87] the rowing app in connection with the server can synthesize the rower’s performance data and provide coaching tips and advice, in some instances, a real-life coach may review rower’s data and provide coaching advice to the rower through the server and the rowing app. Coaching can also be by a virtual coach (in real-time or time-shifted). The rowing app enables the rower to connect to the social rowing network on the server and also connect to other online social networks, the social interaction can include a ranking system for rowers allowing rowers to race each other or row together in training. The server can synthesize computer generated overlays that can be displayed including the rower’s ghost from a prior rowing session, other rowers, a coach, a coach skiff. The Overlays can be numerical or graphical displays of the rower’s data. The server can add stored information to the real-time information and transmit the combination to one or more of the individuals in a group. Please note that as stated previously, the instrumented handle can have a built-in interface that serves as a presentation device).
Regarding claim 13, Smith discloses wherein the status message causes the instrumented handle to display an indication of the change in the metric of the user (¶ [45], [47]-[49], [53], [69]-[70], [72]-[74], [78], [80]-[81], [84], [87], performance data as well as coaching tips/advice can be provided and displayed to the user in real-time.).
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 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Wachirajindakul et al. (US 11,229,825 B1).
Regarding claim 10, Smith teaches wherein the application includes a leaderboard (32, ¶ [53], [78], the rower can see a leaderboard 132 of other rowers’ performances based on variety of criteria).
Although it is implied that Smith teaches wherein the update to the application comprises changing a position of the user on the leaderboard since a rower can compete against other rowers (¶ [53], [78]), Smith does not specifically teach such limitation. However, Wachirajindakul does.
Regarding claim 10, Wachirajindakul teaches rank listing of competitive performances of exercise/rowing on a rowing machine, in which a leaderboard/rank listing is presented to the user during exercise (through the display (41) of the user’s electronic device (39)), and such leaderboard/rank listing is updated periodically to show any changes in a user’s position on the leaderboard/rank listing (Figs. 1 and 3, col. 4 lines 34-54, col. 5 lines 54-61).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Smith’s invention wherein the update (to the application) comprises changing a position of the user on the leaderboard, as taught by Wachirajindakul in order to enable a user’s keep track of his/her performance level compared to others and motivate the user to improve his/her performance to keep or move his/her position on the leaderboard.
Regarding claim 11, Smith in view of Wachirajindakul teaches wherein the rower data received from the instrumented handle is first rower data, and wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to: receive second rower data from an additional instrumented handle (Smith: i.e., another similar handle of another rowing machine used by another user, ¶ [19], [53], [72], [78], [173], [177]-[178]; Wachirajindakul: Figs. 1 and 3, col. 7 lines 17-27 and lines 39-43, data from other competitors are received); determine the position of the user based on the first rower data and the second rower data (Smith: ¶ [45], [47]-[49], [53], [69]-[70], [72]-[74], [78], [80]-[81], [84], [87]); Wachirajindakul: at 320, Figs. 1 and 3, col. 7 lines 17-27 and lines 39-43); and provide the update to the application based on the position of the user (Smith: ¶ [45], [47]-[49], [53], [69]-[70], [72]-[74], [78], [80]-[81], [84], [87]; Wachirajindakul: Fig. 3, col. 4 lines 34-54, col. 5 lines 54-61, col. 7 lines 17-27 and lines 39-43).
Regarding claim 12, Smith in view of Wachirajindakul teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to transmit an additional status message to the additional instrumented handle based on the position of the user (Smith: ¶ [45], [47]-[49], [53], [69]-[70], [72]-[74], [78], [80]-[81], [84], [87]; Wachirajindakul: Fig. 3, col. 4 lines 34-54, col. 5 lines 54-61, col. 7 lines 17-27 and lines 39-43. Upon modification of Smith’s invention with features of Wachirajindakul, an additional status message would be transmitted to the another handle of the another rowing machine or the another user, showing the position of the another user compared to the user in the race).
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall (US 2017/0014669 A1) in view of Smith et al. (US 2019/0351283 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hall teaches an instrumented handle for a rowing machine (Figs. 1A-3) comprising: a handle (Fig. 3, abstract, ¶ [11]); and a printed circuit board ((J), ¶ [11], [28]) coupled to the handle (Fig. 3), the printed circuit board comprising: at least one sensor ((E), (F), (G), (H), Fig. 3, ¶ [11], [26]-[27]); and at least one processor ((M), Fig. 3) communicatively coupled to the at least one sensor (¶ [11], [31]), the at least one processor configured to: receive, from the at least one sensor, sensor data characterizing a row motion (¶ [11]); generate rower data based on the sensor data, the rower data characterizing at least one rowing metric (¶ [11], [26]-[27], i.e., force applied to the handle, distance traveled by the handle, relative changes in height of the handle, striking rate); and transmit the rower data to an external display or device (¶ [11], [30], claim 5).
Hall is silent about the external device being a server, and the rower data causing the server to provide an update to an application based on the rower data.
Regarding claim 1, Smith teaches an instrumented handle for a rowing machine comprising: a handle (301, Fig. 11, ¶ [118]); and the handle comprising: at least one sensor (¶ [19], [173], [177]); and at least one processor communicatively coupled to the at least one sensor (¶ [177]-[178], [186], the handle can have a built-in rower interface which serves as (or is part of) a participation device), the at least one processor configured to: receive, from the at least one sensor, sensor data characterizing a row motion (¶ [19], [173], [177]); generate rower data based on the sensor data, the rower data characterizing at least one rowing metric (¶ [19], [67], [173], [177], i.e., applied force, position, speed, acceleration, heart rate, travel direction); and transmit the rower data to a server, the rower data causing the server to provide an update to an application based on the rower data (¶ [47], [49], [62], [69]-[70], [74], [78], [178], [188], the rowing app, in connection with the server, can synthesize the rower’s performance data and provide coaching tips and advice).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hall’s invention such that the rower data is transmitted to a server and causing the server to provide an update to an application based on the rower data, as taught by Smith in order to enable use of the instrumented handle with various rowing machines and enable a user have his/her performances stored on the server and receive various information including coaching advice and performance parameters of other users from the server and race against his/her own previous performance data and/or other users, to keep the user motivated to exercise/train.
Regarding claim 2, Hall in view of Smith teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to provide at least a portion of the rower data for display (Hall: ¶ [12]-[13], [30], claim 5).
Regarding claim 3, Hall in view of Smith teaches the instrumented handle comprising a load cell (Hall: (E), ¶ [26]), wherein the at least one processor is configured to: receive a signal from the load cell (Hall: ¶ [11], [26]); determine a rowing force based on the signal (Hall: ¶ [11], [26], claim 5); and generate the rower data based on the rowing force, the at least one rowing metric comprising the rowing force (Hall: ¶ [11], [26], claim 5).
Claim 4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall in view of Smith as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhang (CN 216092069U) (a copy of a translation of this document has been provided with this Office Action. The cited paragraphs of Zhang are with respect to the translation).
Regarding claim 4, Hall in view of Smith teaches wherein the at least one sensor comprises an accelerometer (Hall: ¶ [27]), and wherein the at least one processor is configured to: receive first sensor data from the accelerometer (Hall: ¶ [11], [27], claim 5); determine an acceleration value based on the first sensor data (Hall: ¶ [11], [27], claim 5; Smith: ¶ [173]); and generate the rower data based on the first sensor data, the at least one rowing metric comprising the acceleration value (Hall: ¶ [11], [27], claim 5; Smith: ¶ [173]).
Hall in view of Smith is silent about wherein the at least one sensor also comprises a gyroscope, wherein the at least one processor is configured to; receive second sensor data from the gyroscope, determine a rotation value based on the second sensor data; and generate the rower data based on the second sensor data, the at least one rowing metric comprising the rotation value.
Regarding claim 4, Zhang teaches an instrumented handle for a rowing machine comprising: a handle (2, Fig. 1) comprising at least one sensor (6, 7, 12, Figs. 2-3, ¶ [47]); and at least one processor (5, Fig. 3, ¶ [47]) communicatively coupled to the at least one sensor (Fig. 3, ¶ [52]), wherein the at least one sensor comprises an accelerometer and a gyroscope (¶ [59]), and wherein the at least one processor is configured to: receive first sensor data from the accelerometer (¶ [59]); determine an acceleration value based on the first sensor data (¶ [59]); receive second sensor data from the gyroscope (¶ [59]); determine a rotation value based on the second sensor data (¶ [59], detecting angular velocity to obtain an attitude/orientation signal of the handle); and generate the rower data based on the first sensor data and the second sensor data, the at least one rowing metric comprising the acceleration value and the rotation value (¶ [59], [63]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hall’s invention in view of Smith wherein the at least one sensor also comprises a gyroscope, wherein the at least one processor is configured to; receive second sensor data from the gyroscope, determine a rotation value based on the second sensor data; and generate the rower data based on (the first sensor data and) the second sensor data, the at least one rowing metric comprising (the acceleration value and) the rotation value, as taught by Zhang in order to track user’s performance and posture more accurately and provide required advice to the user to improve upon his/her performance and posture, especially when training for a sport specific (i.e., rowing) event.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall in view of Smith as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Brodt et al. (WO 2017/015758 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Hall in view of Smith teaches the instrumented handle comprising a battery (Hall: (k), ¶ [11], [29]), wherein the printed circuit board is configured to transmit power from the battery to the at least one processor and the at least one sensor via one or more wires (Hall: (N), ¶ [11], [32]).
Hall in view of Smith is silent about using one or more signal traces instead of one or more wires.
Regarding claim 5, Brodt teaches a printed circuit board (401, Fig. 4, ¶ [40]) comprising one or more signal/power traces (i.e., 410, 412, Fig. 4) to transmit power to a processor/controller and at least one sensor (¶ [40]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hall’s invention in view of Smith wherein the printed circuit board includes one or more signal/power traces to transmit power from a power supply (i.e., battery) to the at least one processor and the at least one sensor, in order to provide for a more compact and lighter device/instrumented handle with a more efficient power transmission to various parts of the device/instrumented handle.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall in view of Smith as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of McInturf et al. (WO 2022/047006 A1).
Regarding claims 6-7, Hall in view of Smith teaches the instrumented handle comprising a handle attachment component (Hall: (C)) coupled to the handle and a load cell (Hall: (E)) at a first end (Hall: Fig. 3), the load cell configured to detect a force on the handle (Hall: ¶ [26], claim 5).
Hall in view of Smith is silent about the handle attachment component being coupled to a coupler at a second end and the load cell being coupled to the coupler.
Regarding claims 6-7, McInturf teaches an instrumented handle (Fig. 3) comprising a handle attachment component (i.e., 44 in Fig. 3) coupled to the handle at a first end (Fig. 3) and coupled to a coupler (i.e., carabiner) at a second end (Fig. 3), a force sensor (48, having a strain gauge) coupled to the coupler (¶ [52]) and configured to detect a force applied on the handle (¶ [62], please note that upon modification of Hall’s invention in view of Smith, the load cell (as taught by Hall) would be coupled to the coupler (as taught by McInturf)).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hall’s invention in view of Smith with a handle attachment component that is coupled to a coupler at a second end and the load cell is coupled to the coupler as taught by McInturf in order to provide easier access to the load cell to exchange it when needed.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall in view of Smith as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2020/0289890 A1).
Hall in view of Smith is silent about the instrumented handle comprising an actuator, wherein the at least one processor is configured to transmit a signal to the actuator based on the rower data, the signal causing the actuator to vibrate.
Regarding claim 8, Kim teaches an instrumented handle (100) comprising an actuator (144, Fig. 1B), wherein at least one processor (120, Fig. 1B) is configured to transmit a signal to the actuator based on rower data (i.e., of the user performing row exercise, Fig. 6), the signal causing the actuator to vibrate (¶ [44], [60]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hall’s invention in view of Smith with an actuator, wherein the at least one processor is configured to transmit a signal to the actuator based on the rower data, the signal causing the actuator to vibrate, as taught by Kim in order to provide a visually impaired user with haptic notifications regarding his/her performance to inform the user of such performance and enable the user make necessary adjustments for improvement upon such performance.
Claims 14-16 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. (US 2019/0351283 A1) in view of Hall (US 2017/0014669 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Smith teaches a system comprising: a server comprising at least a first processor (36, 103, ¶ [45], [47]); and an instrumented handle (301) for a rowing machine communicatively coupled to the server over a network (Fig. 11, ¶ [45], [118]), the instrumented handle comprising at least a second processor (¶ [177]-[178], [186], the handle can have a built-in rower interface which serves as (or is part of) a participation device) and at least one sensor (¶ [19], [173], [177]), the at least second processor configured to: receive, from the at least one sensor, sensor data characterizing a row motion (¶ [19], [173], [177]); generate rower data based on the sensor data, the rower data characterizing at least one rowing metric (¶ [19], [67], [173], [177], i.e., applied force, position, speed, acceleration, heart rate, travel direction); and transmit the rower data to the server over the network, wherein the at least first processor of the server is configured to receive the rower data and provide an update to an application based on the rower data (Fig. 1, ¶ [47], [49], [62], [69]-[70], [74], [78], [178], [188], the rowing app, in connection with the server, can synthesize the rower’s performance data and provide coaching tips and advice).
Smith is silent about the instrumented handle comprising a printed circuit board.
Regarding claim 14, Hall teaches an instrumented handle for a rowing machine (Figs. 1A-3, abstract, ¶ [11]) comprising a printed circuit board ((J), ¶ [11], [28]) with at least a (second) processor ((M), Fig. 3) and at least one sensor ((E), (F), (G), (H), Fig. 3, ¶ [11], [26]-[27]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Smith’s invention wherein the instrumented handle comprises a printed circuit board having as taught by Hall in order to provide a more efficient connection between various components of the instrumented handle.
Regarding claim 15, Smith in view of Hall teaches wherein the at least second processor is configured to update a display of the rowing machine based on the rower data (Smith: 305, ¶ [47]-[48], [72], [78], [118], [123], [178], performance data as well as coaching tips/advice can be provided and displayed to the user in real-time).
Regarding claim 16, Smith in view of Hall teaches wherein the instrumented handle comprises a load cell (Smith: ¶ [173]; Hall: (E), ¶ [26]), and wherein the at least second processor is configured to: receive a signal from the load cell (Smith: ¶ [173]; Hall: ¶ [11], [26]); determine a rowing force based on the signal (Smith: ¶ [173]; Hall: ¶ [11], [26], claim 5); and generate the rower data based on the rowing force, the at least one rowing metric comprising the rowing force (Smith: ¶ [173]; Hall: ¶ [11], [26], claim 5).
Regarding claim 19, Smith in view of Hall teaches wherein the at least first processor of the server is configured to: generate a status message (Smith: i.e., coaching tips, or user’s ranking in a race, is considered a status message) based on the update to the application, the status message characterizing a change in a metric of a user; and transmit the status message to the instrumented handle based on the update to the application (Smith: ¶ [45], [47]-[49], [53], [69]-[70], [72]-[78], [80]-[81], [84], [87] the rowing app in connection with the server can synthesize the rower’s performance data and provide coaching tips and advice, in some instances, a real-life coach may review rower’s data and provide coaching advice to the rower through the server and the rowing app. Coaching can also be by a virtual coach (in real-time or time-shifted). The rowing app enables the rower to connect to the social rowing network on the server and also connect to other online social networks, the social interaction can include a ranking system for rowers allowing rowers to race each other or row together in training. The server can synthesize computer generated overlays that can be displayed including the rower’s ghost from a prior rowing session, other rowers, a coach, a coach skiff. The Overlays can be numerical or graphical displays of the rower’s data. The server can add stored information to the real-time information and transmit the combination to one or more of the individuals in a group. Please note that as stated previously, the instrumented handle can have a built-in interface that serves as a presentation device).
Regarding claim 20, Smith in view of Hall teaches wherein a testing computing device (Smith: i.e., another participation device of another rower) is configured to update a user interface based on the status message (Smith: ¶ [45], [47]-[49], [53], [69]-[70], [72]-[74], [78], [80]-[81], [84], [87]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith view of Hall as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2020/0289890 A1).
Smith in view of Hall is silent about the instrumented handle comprising an actuator, wherein the at least one processor is configured to transmit a signal to the actuator based on the rower data, the signal causing the actuator to vibrate.
Regarding claim 17, Kim teaches an instrumented handle (100), wherein the instrumented handle comprises an actuator (144, Fig. 1B), and wherein at least a second processor (120, Fig. 1B) is configured to transmit a signal to the actuator based on the rower data (i.e., of the user performing row exercise, Fig. 6), the signal causing the actuator to vibrate (¶ [44], [60]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Smith’s invention in view of Hall with an actuator, wherein the at least second processor is configured to transmit a signal to the actuator based on the rower data, the signal causing the actuator to vibrate, as taught by Kim in order to provide a visually impaired user with haptic notifications regarding his/her performance to inform the user of such performance and enable the user make necessary adjustments for improvement upon such performance.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall in view of Smith as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Zhang (CN 216092069U) (a copy of a translation of this document has been provided with this Office Action. The cited paragraphs of Zhang are with respect to the translation).
Regarding claim 18, Smith in view of Hall teaches wherein the at least one sensor comprises an accelerometer (Hall: ¶ [27]), and wherein the at least second processor is configured to: receive first sensor data from the accelerometer (Hall: ¶ [11], [27], claim 5); determine an acceleration value based on the first sensor data (Smith: ¶ [173]; Hall: ¶ [11], [27], claim 5); generate the rower data based on the first sensor data, the at least one rowing metric comprising the acceleration value (Smith: ¶ [173]; Hall: ¶ [11], [27], claim 5).
Smith in view of Hall is silent about wherein the at least one sensor also comprises a gyroscope, wherein the at least second processor is configured to receive second sensor data from the gyroscope; determine a rotation value based on the second sensor data; and generate the rower data based on the second sensor data, the at least one rowing metric comprising the rotation value.
Regarding claim 18, Zhang teaches an instrumented handle for a rowing machine comprising: an instrumented handle for a rowing machine (2, Fig. 1), the instrumented handle comprising at least one sensor (6, 7, 12, Figs. 2-3, ¶ [47]); and at least one processor (5, Fig. 3, ¶ [47]) communicatively coupled to the at least one sensor (Fig. 3, ¶ [52]), wherein the at least one sensor comprises an accelerometer and a gyroscope (¶ [59]), and wherein the at least one processor is configured to: receive first sensor data from the accelerometer (¶ [59]); determine an acceleration value based on the first sensor data (¶ [59]); receive second sensor data from the gyroscope (¶ [59]); determine a rotation value based on the second sensor data (¶ [59], detecting angular velocity to obtain an attitude/orientation signal of the handle); and generate the rower data based on the first sensor data and the second sensor data, the at least one rowing metric comprising the acceleration value and the rotation value (¶ [59], [63]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Smith’s invention in view of Hall wherein the at least one sensor also comprises a gyroscope, wherein the at least one processor is configured to; receive second sensor data from the gyroscope, determine a rotation value based on the second sensor data; and generate the rower data based on (the first sensor data and) the second sensor data, the at least one rowing metric comprising (the acceleration value and) the rotation value, as taught by Zhang in order to track user’s performance and posture more accurately and provide required advice to the user to improve upon his/her performance and posture, especially when training for a sport specific (i.e., rowing) event.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights