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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 has been considered and are addressed below.
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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-20 are drawn to a computer implemented computer readable non-transitory medium, computer implemented method, system which is/are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Independent claims 1, 10 and 19, recite “measure fitness data of a user”, “receiving said fitness data”, “coupling said fitness data with a health plan of said user”, “determining via machine learning technique a fitness level of said user using said fitness data and said health plan”, “adjusting via said machine learning technique said health plan based on said fitness level to create an adjusted health plan”, “presenting said fitness data”, “presenting said adjusted health plan”
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong One: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims are abstract but for the inclusion of the additional elements including “computing device having a user interface”, “at least one fitness device having at least one sensor configured to measure fitness data of a user”, “a display operable connected to said computing device and said at least one fitness device wherein said display comprises a display user interface having a plurality of display windows”, “a processor operably connected to said computing device, at least one fitness device and a display”, “wherein said non-transitory computer readable medium contains instructions stored thereon which when executed by said processor cause said processor to perform operations” which are additional elements that are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer components. See: MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional elements are merely incidental or token additions to the claim that do not alter or affect how the process steps or functions in the abstract idea are performed (e.g., the “processor” language is incidental to what it is “configured” to perform). Therefore, the claimed additional elements do not add meaningful limitations to the indicated claims beyond a general linking to a technological environment. See: MPEP 2106.05(h).
The claims recite additional element of “presenting said fitness data in a first display window of said plurality of display windows, presenting said adjusted health plan in a second display window of said plurality of display windows” which amounts to extra-solution activity concerning mere data gathering. The specification (e.g., as excerpted above) does not provide any indication that the additional elements are anything other than well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (as they are here). See: MPEP 2106.05(g).
Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are not integrated into the claim because they are merely incidental or token additions to the claim that do not alter or affect how the process steps or functions in the abstract idea are performed. Therefore, the claimed additional elements do not add meaningful limitations to the indicated claims beyond a general linking to a technological environment. See: MPEP 2106.05(h).
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Hence, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong Two: NO).
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, using the additional elements to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic components cannot provide an inventive concept. See: MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are not integrated into the claim because they are merely incidental or token additions to the claim that do not alter or affect how the process steps or functions in the abstract idea are performed. Therefore, the claimed additional elements do not add meaningful limitations to the indicated claims beyond a general linking to a technological environment. See: MPEP 2106.05(h).
Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are configured to perform well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry. See: MPEP 2106.05(d). Said additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and provide conventional functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea. The originally filed specification supports this conclusion at Figure 1, and
Paragraph 41 recite “key cards and wearables preferably comprise a secure transmitter configured to transmit a login credentials to the computing device and/or control board of the display. Wearables having a secure transmitter include clothing and accessories, such as shirts, pants, jackets, belts, shoes, wristbands, watches, glasses, pins, nametags, etc., that have said transmitter attached thereto and/or incorporated therein”.
Paragraph 22 recites “client 105 may include a personal computer, a wireless telephone, a streaming device, a “smart” television, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a laptop, a smart phone, a tablet computer, or another type of computation or communication interface 280. Servers 110 may include devices that access, fetch, aggregate, process, search, provide, and/or maintain documents. Although FIG. 1 depicts a preferred embodiment of an environment 100 for the system 400, in other implementations, the environment 100 may contain fewer components, different components, differently arranged components, and/or additional components than those depicted in FIG. 1. Alternatively, or additionally, one or more components of the environment 100 may perform one or more other tasks described as being performed by one or more other components of the environment 100.”
Paragraph 49 recite “a user's smart watch-having an accelerometer and gyroscope configured to collect fitness data 430B in the form of linear acceleration data and angular acceleration data, respectively—may be used by the system to collect fitness data during a fitness session, wherein the fitness data is presented in one or more display windows of the display user interface along with image data of a fitness instructional video”.
The claims recite additional element of “presenting said fitness data in a first display window of said plurality of display windows, presenting said adjusted health plan in a second display window of said plurality of display windows” which amounts to extra-solution activity concerning mere data gathering. The specification (e.g., as excerpted above) does not provide any indication that the additional elements are anything other than well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (as they are here). See: MPEP 2106.05(g).
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination, the claims simply instruct the additional elements to implement the concept described above in the identification of abstract idea with routine, conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment.
Hence, the claims as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claim(s) 2-9, 11-18, 20 when analyzed as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and/or as an ordered combination, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. These claims fail to remedy the deficiencies of their parent claims above, and are therefore rejected for at least the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above, and incorporated herein. Additionally, the devices mentioned in dependents claim are used as input devices.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brust (2017/0329933) in view of Wexler (2023/0336694).
With respect to claim 1 Brust teaches a system for managing fitness, comprising:
a computing device having a user interface (Brust paragraph 38 “The client computing device 112 is used to present one or more user interfaces”);
at least one fitness device having at least one sensor configured to measure fitness data of a user (Brust paragraph 38 “he client computing device 112 may include software or specialized hardware that is configured to communicate with a personal electronic device of the human user 106 used in connection with the therapy activities, such as a wearable device”);
a display operably connected to said computing device and said at least one fitness device (Brust paragraph 47 “the patient interface 330 may be presented on a patient-operated electronic computing device 350 (e.g., a smartphone computing device). The patient interface 330 may be implemented through a graphical user interface 355 (e.g., software app) that displays suggestion and guidance information to encourage, instruct, or control treatment activities by the patient 340”),
a processor operably connected to said computing device, at least one fitness device, and display (Brust paragraph 48 “The movements 365 may be monitored by a wearable device 360 worn by the patient 340, and relevant monitoring information may be displayed to the patient 340 as part of the therapy activities within the graphical user interface 355. The relevant monitoring information from the wearable device 360 may further be collected and processed by the electronic computing device 350 to update the selection of suggestions, such as via communication of the monitoring information to a health information system, or communication of the monitoring information to a therapist-operated electronic computing device”); and
a non-transitory computer-readable medium coupled to said processor, wherein said non-transitory computer-readable medium contains instructions stored thereon, which, when executed by said processor, cause said processor to perform operations comprising: receiving said fitness data from said at least one fitness device, coupling said fitness data with a health plan of said user (Brust paragraph 69 “”use of the sensor device 605 may provide the ability to not only measure and verify compliance with a particular therapy activity, but also monitor and display a progress (and an indication of how much the patient has improved), and provide specialized feedback such as from holding an exercise position for a certain period of time. In further examples, other forms of physiological measurements may occur with use of the wearable device, such as specific biomechanics measurements or chemical characteristic (e.g., blood chemistry) measurements. Thus, a variety of data types collected by the wearable device may provide a perspective of the performed exercise(s) in addition to the patient's overall health status),
determining, via a machine learning technique, a fitness level of said user using said fitness data and said health plan, adjusting, via said machine learning technique, said health plan based on said fitness level to create an adjusted health plan (Brust paragraph 53 “example, the graphical user interface 424 may be used by a therapist for scheduling sets and repetitions of particular therapy activity scripts, adjusting the order or active status of one or multiple therapy activity scripts, or adjusting other aspects of a therapy regimen”),
presenting said fitness data in a first display window of said plurality of display windows (Brust paragraph 57 “dashboards for presenting therapy status to different types of users”),
presenting said adjusted health plan (Brust paragraph 70 “to present a particular exercise therapy”).
Brust does not explicitly teach wherein said display comprises a display user interface having a plurality of display windows nor in a second display window of said plurality of display windows.
Wexler teaches determine the percentages of time for which user 100 or individual 3320, 3330 was speaking over a plurality of time windows. Processor 210 may be further configured to generate a visual representation of the percentages for a particular speaker (e.g. user 100 or individuals 3320, 3330) during a plurality of time windows. Thus, for example, processor 210 may generate, a text, a bar chart, a pie chart, a trend chart, etc., showing how the percentage of time varied during the course of a conversation (Wexler paragraph 494).
One of ordinary skill at the time of filing would have found it obvious to combine the teachings of Brust with Wexler with the motivation of improving and enhancing a user's interactions with his or her environment, and the user may rely on the wearable device during daily activities (Wexler paragraph 561).
Claim 10 is rejected as above.
Claim 19 is rejected as above.
With respect to claim 2 Brust in view of Wexler teaches the system of claim 1, wherein said fitness data comprises at least one of: heart rate data, linear acceleration data, angular acceleration data, and weight data (Brust paragraph 65).
Claim 11 is rejected as above.
With respect to claim 3 Brust in view of Wexler teaches the system of claim 1, wherein said health plan comprises at least one of a workout plan or a diet plan (Brust paragraph 128).
Claim 12 is rejected as above.
With respect to claim 4 Brust in view of Wexler teaches the system of claim 1, wherein said computing device transmits nutrition data relevant to said health plan to said processor when input by said user (Brust paragraph 128).
Claim 13 is rejected as above.
With respect to claim 5 Brust in view of Wexler teaches the system of claim 4, further comprising additional instructions, which, when executed by said processor, cause said processor to perform additional operations comprising: receiving said nutrition data from said computing device, determining, via said machine learning technique, a nutrition level of said user using said nutrition data and said health plan, and adjusting, via said machine learning technique, said health plan based on said nutrition level to create said adjusted health plan (Wexler paragraph 806). One of ordinary skill at the time of filing would have found it obvious to combine the teachings of Brust with Wexler with the motivation of improving and enhancing a user's interactions with his or her environment, and the user may rely on the wearable device during daily activities (Wexler paragraph 561).
Claim 14 is rejected as above.
With respect to claim 6 Burst in view of Wexler teaches the system of claim 1, wherein said display further comprises a control board configured to control said plurality of display windows presented within said display user interface (Brust paragraph 55).
Claim 15 is rejected as above.
With respect to claim 7 Burst in view of Wexler teaches the system of claim 4, wherein said control board is configured to receive instructions from an input device operably connected to said processor, wherein said instructions cause said control board to change a layout of said plurality of display windows of said display user interface (Brust paragraph 56).
Claim 16 is rejected as above.
Claim 20 is rejected as above.
With respect to claim 8 Burst in view of Wexler teaches the system of claim 1, wherein said system further comprises a secondary security device configured to verify an identity of said user (Wexler paragraph 4). One of ordinary skill at the time of filing would have found it obvious to combine the teachings of Brust with Wexler with the motivation of improving and enhancing a user's interactions with his or her environment, and the user may rely on the wearable device during daily activities (Wexler paragraph 561).
Claim 17 is rejected as above.
With respect to claim 9 Burst in view of Wexler teaches the system of claim 6, wherein said secondary security device comprises at least one of: a biometric device, a key card, and a wearable device having a secure transmitter (Brust paragraph 69).
Claim 18 is rejected as above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REGINALD R REYES whose telephone number is (571)270-5212. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30 M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shahid R. Merchant can be reached at (571) 270-1360. 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.
REGINALD R. REYES
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3684
/REGINALD R REYES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684