DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Priority
This application is a continuation of US Application no. 16/207,919, now US Patent no. 12,168,165, filed 3 December 2018, which is a continuation of US Application no. 13/486,830, now US Patent no. 10,166,436, filed 1 June 2012, which is a continuation of US Application no. 12/168,025, now US Patent no. 8,200,323, filed 18 May 2009.
Claim Objections
Claim 34 is objected to because of the following informalities: the preamble of claim 34 recites “a method for providing feedback to an athlete related to an activity, the activity comprising:” wherein it is considered that it should read “the method comprising:”. 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.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "the target performance parameter" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 38 recites the limitation "the second indicator" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 36 introduces the first indicator. Claim 37, which depends from claim 36 introduces the second indicator. However, claim 38 which addresses both the first indicator and second indicator does not depend from claim 37.
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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1
The claims 21-33 are directed to methods which therefore fall within a statutory category under 35 USC 101.
Step 2A, Prong 1
The claims are directed to an abstract idea of a mental process. In particular, the claims recite:
Receiving information concerning a user,
Analyzing the information to establish performance ranges and determine the athletes performance relative to those ranges, and
Displaying the results of the analysis.
Additionally, the claims recite receiving user input related to a performance goal, generating workout zones based on the user input, including first and second workout zones having respective upper and lower limits, determining performance parameters of the user during an activity, and determining/providing an indication of the athlete’s current workout zone. These limitations constitute the observations and evaluations that can practically be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. In this manner, claim 21 is considered to recite the abstract idea of receiving/collecting information, analyzing the information, and providing/displaying the results of the analysis.
Step 2A, Prong 2
The claim further recites that certain steps are performed “on a portable electronic device” and that the device displays a graphical representation of the workout zones and feedback including an indicator of the user’s current workout zone.
These additional elements do not integrate the mental process into a practical application. The portable electronic device is used as a tool for receiving and analyzing the information, while the graphical display presents the workout ranges and the result of the analysis to the user. The claim does not require a particular physiological sensor, a particular technological technique for acquiring performance parameters, specialized processing circuitry, or a particular technological technique for generating the workout zones of determining the user’s current zone.
Further, displaying a graphical representation of the workout zones and an indication of the user’s current workout zone merely communicates information used in, and resulting from, the recited analysis. The claimed display does not improve the operation of the portable electronic device or display technology itself.
Considered individually and in combination, the additional elements therefore amount to using the portable electronic device to implement the recited information analysis and present the resulting information. The additionally elements do not improve the functioning of a computer or other technology or otherwise impose a meaningful limit on the recited mental process.
Step 2B
The additional elements, considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The portable electronic device performs the generic functions of receiving and processing information, while the display presents the information and results generated by the analysis. The ordered combination similarly amounts to receiving user-related information analyzing the information to establish performance ranges and determine the user’s relationship to those ranges, and presenting the resulting information on a portable electronic device. The additional element of the portable electronic device therefore does not provide an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter.
Claims 22-33 do not recite additional limitations sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more. Claims 22-23 merely specific the manner in which data is analyzed and displayed, and the particular parameter of interest. Claims 24-25 recite adjusting the workout zone limits based on the user’s performance, which constitutes further analysis and evaluation of the received performance information. Claims 26-28 add transmitting and receiving performance information and feedback which merely adds generic communication of information to the underlying analysis. Claims 29-33 further recite receiving coaching and difficulty information and using that information to generate a workout zone, including future activity. These additional limitations are considered to further define the received information, the analysis, the communication and display of information. None of these limitations are considered to improve the functioning of a portable electronic device or other technology, nor meaningfully limit the mental process. Additionally, further limitations of the dependent claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
For claim 34:
Step 1
The claims 34-40 are directed to methods which therefore fall within a statutory category under 35 USC 101.
Step 2A, Prong 1
The claims are directed to an abstract idea of a mental process. In particular, the claims recite:
Receiving performance information concerning a user,
Analyzing the information to establish performance zone and setting limits,
Determining additional performance information, and
Analyzing the additional performance information to adjust the performance range.
These limitations constitute observations and evaluations that can practically be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. In this manner, claim 34 is considered to recite the abstract idea of receiving/collecting information, analyzing the information, and providing/displaying the results of the analysis.
Step 2A, Prong 2
The claim further recites that certain steps are performed “on a portable electronic device” and that the device displays a graphical representation of the workout zones and feedback including an indicator of the user’s current workout zone.
These additional elements do not integrate the mental process into a practical application. The portable electronic device is used as a tool for receiving and analyzing the information, while the adjusting the information based on the analysis of the received information. The claim does not require a particular physiological sensor, a particular technological technique for acquiring performance parameters, specialized processing circuitry, or a particular technological technique for generating the workout zones of determining the user’s current zone.
Considered individually and in combination, the additional elements therefore amount to using the portable electronic device to implement the recited information analysis and present the resulting information. The additionally elements do not improve the functioning of a computer or other technology or otherwise impose a meaningful limit on the recited mental process.
Step 2B
The additional elements, considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The portable electronic device performs the generic functions of receiving and processing information. The ordered combination similarly amounts to receiving user-related information analyzing the information to establish performance ranges/zones, receiving additional performance information, and adjusting the zone based on the additional information on a portable device. The additional element of the portable electronic device therefore does not provide an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter.
Claims 35-40 do not recite additional limitations sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more. Claim 35 merely displays the resents of the analysis by indicating whether a user’s current performance is within a workout zone. Claims 36-37 further specify displaying first and second indicators associated with respective performance parameters over a graphical representation of the workout zone, which merely specifies the manner in which the analyzed performance information is visually presented. Claim 38 further required the positions of the indicators to be adjusted in real time based on the performance information, however the claim does not recite a particular technological technique for acquiring, processing, or displaying the information, but instead merely requires the graphical presentation to reflect changes in the underlying performance information. Claims 39-40 further recite receiving information concerning a difficulty level and generating another workout zone based on that information, which constitutes further receipt and analysis of information to establish a performance range. These additional limitations are considered to further define the received information, the analysis, the communication and display of information. None of these limitations are considered to improve the functioning of a portable electronic device or other technology, nor meaningfully limit the mental process. Additionally, further limitations of the dependent claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 21, 23, and 26 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Henry et al. (US Patent no. 5,769,755 -- disclosed by Applicant) in view of Shum et al. (US Publication no. 2003/0224337 -- disclosed by Applicant).
In regard to claim 21, Henry et al. disclose a method for providing feedback to an athlete related to an activity, the method comprising:
receiving, on a portable electronic device, a user input, wherein the user input is related to a performance goal (col 3 lines 52-60, input means 19 allow a user to input pieces of information such as weight, age, resting heart rate and perceived fitness capacity, wherein this information is considered performance related activity; col 3 lines 40-43, the input means 19 is part of a display 18 that is capable of being attached to the user, and therefore considered to be a portable electronic device);
generating, on the portable electronic device, workout zones based on the user input (col 3 line 64 – col 4 line 10, a calculation means 21 estimates a spectrum of exercise intensity levels based on the user input information, wherein the scale of intensity are expressly taught to be zones), wherein the workout zones comprise:
a first workout zone comprising an upper limit and a lower limit (col 4 lines 33-36, there are preferable four zones: below training zone, a weight loss training zone, a cardiovascular training zone, and an above training zone dictated by the ranges of heart rates limits taught at col 1 lines 17-56; a zone or range is considered to necessarily comprise an upper limit and a lower limit); and
a second workout zone comprising an upper limit and a lower limit; and determining, on the portable electronic device, performance parameters of the athlete during the activity (col 4 lines 33-36, there are preferable four zones: below training zone, a weight loss training zone, a cardiovascular training zone, and an above training zone dictated by the ranges of heart rates limits taught at col 1 lines 17-56; a zone or range is considered to necessarily comprise an upper limit and a lower limit);
displaying, on the portable electronic device, a graphical representation of the workout zones, and displaying, on the portable electronic device, feedback related to the activity, the feedback comprising an indication of the athlete's current workout zone col 4 lines 43-54 and col 5 lines 10-18; the display comprising contrasting colored LEDs).
Henry et al. does not expressly teach that the information input by the user include information related to a performance goal. However, this feature is considered to be implied by Henry et al. as the reference recognizes goals (e.g., weight loss, Olympic training, rehabilitation, cardiovascular improvement, and expressly says that “Depending on the exercise goal a particular workout may be created” (col 1 lines 24-26). For this, the Examiner looks to Shum et al. which teaches that a user’s workout may be established in accordance with a desired performance goal (para 3). In particular, Shum et al. explains that individuals exercise to accomplish different objectives such as losing weight, training for a particular sport or athletic event, and improving physical condition, and that different exercise zones are appropriate for different objectives (para 3-5). Shum et al. further teach that a weight loss objective may be pursued by maintaining a user’s heart rate within a particular heart rate zone, and describes electronic training scripts specifying activities and performance conditions, such as heart rate, pace, distance, and duration that the user should achieve during the workout (para 3-6 and 30-34). The training scripts of Shum et al. are created based on user input of performance related goals or objectives, for instance the user is instructed to input an action to be performed and a quantity of the action (para 30), or to input aspects such as the distance, duration, intensity, pace, heart rate etc (para 49-55). Another feature is “heart rate less than or equal to” (para 55) which is considered to be a performance goal set by the user.
In view of this, it is considered to have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and technique of Henry et al. to receive, as part of the user input information, a desired performance or training goal as taught by Shum et al., since Shum et al. teaches that this information is useful to tailor a training program according to the objective sought by the user. Such modification would comprise the application of a known technique (training program based on user goals of Shum et al.) to a known device (device for determining the individualized intensity zones of Henry et al.) to provide workout intensity levels better suited to achieving the exercise benefit sought by the user.
In regard to claim 23, Henry et al. teach about individualized heart rate zones which serve as indicators of performance, however does not expressly teach that the target performance parameter comprises at least one of target heart rate, distance, duration, or intensity. Shum et al. expressly teaches that target performance parameters that are selected by the user include distance, duration, intensity, pace, heart rate etc (para 49-55). Another feature is “heart rate less than or equal to” (para 55). Modification of Henry et al. in this manner would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since Shum et al. explicitly teaches that inputting aspects related to distance, duration, intensity, pace, heart rate facilitates workout zone training for achieving the exercise benefit sought by the user.
In regard to claim 26, Henry et al. does not teach transmitting the determined performance parameters to a remote device. Shum et al. expressly teach transmitting the determined performance parameters to a remote device (para 27 and 56-58, master device 201 creates a training script from user input information, wherein the script may be transmitted to a servant device such as a wearable watch). Modification of Henry et al. in this manner would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since Shum et al. explicitly teaches transmitting the training performance script to an other device to permit athletes to easily and conveniently share successful training routines with each other.
Claim 22 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Henry et al. (US Patent no. 5,769,755 -- disclosed by Applicant) in view of Shum et al. (US Publication no. 2003/0224337 -- disclosed by Applicant), further in view of Quatrochi et al. (US Publication no. 2009/0233771).
In regard to claim 22, Henry et al. in view of Shum et al. are considered to substantially describe the invention as claimed wherein Henry et al. describe graphically displaying workout zones and providing an indication of a user’s current workout zone, however neither teach the indication comprises an indicator overlaid on top of the graphical representation of the workout zones. Quatrochi et al. describes a system and technique for collection and display of athletic information. Quatrochi et al. teach that an athlete may establish a goal for which a training program to accommodate the goal is generated. Data representing performance of the athlete may be collected, wherein the actual performance of the athlete may be graphically compared to the training program goal. In an embodiment, the actual performance graphical bar may overlay the training program goal bar (para 128). The graphical representation of Quatrochi et al. is considered to comprise an alternative manner for displaying the user’s performance to that of Henry et al. It is considered to have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display of Henry et al. to include an overlay of the user’s performance over a graphical display of workout zone as taught by Quatrochi et al. in order to facilitate readily observable graphical comparison between the user’s actual performance from the desired performance represented by the workout zones.
Claims 24, 25, and 27-31 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Henry et al. (US Patent no. 5,769,755 -- disclosed by Applicant) in view of Shum et al. (US Publication no. 2003/0224337 -- disclosed by Applicant), further in view of Clarke (US Publication no. 2006/0228681).
In regard to claim 24, Henry et al., in view of Shum et al. are considered to describe the invention as claimed, however do no teach adjusting the upper limit and the lower limit of the first workout zone. Clarke describes a system and technique for developing a training program. A training system of Clarke is configured to receive and process training data to establish a training profile and training program for a user. Within the training system is a heart rate training zone module 104C which may be configured to determine a plurality of heart rate zone based on the profile of the trainee (para 22). Similar to Henry et al., Clarke teaches that a training program includes heart rate zones that may include a warm-up zone, a recover zone, a fat burn zone, a threshold zone, and a high intensity zone (para 30-37). Clarke teaches that the training system may be instructed to modify initial settings (which is considered to include the heart rate zones), wherein the adjustment may be conducted in connection with actual training activities performed by the trainee during a training activity (para 25 and 39). Adjustments may be made to the heart rate for each training zone wherein the whole zone may be shifted up or down using a predetermined variance (para 39-40). The adjustment may be automatic and be based on how much time a trainee has spent within each zone and this is performed to based on changes in training activity, metabolism, or fitness levels that may change for the trainee (para 39-40). This is considered to suggest that the zones upper and lower limits are change by increasing or decreasing zones and are done based on a determined second performance information of the trainee (e.g., a metabolic test or calculation of how much time a trainee has been able to be within a zone). Therefore, it is considered to have been obvious to one of ordinary skill int the art to modify Henry et al. to provide for heart rate zone adjustment in order to adapt training to the physiological adaptation and progression of the trainee.
In regard to claim 25, Henry et al., in view of Shum et al. are considered to describe the invention as claimed, however do not teach the adjusting is based on the performance parameters of the athlete during the activity. Clarke, as described above, teaches automatic adjustment of the determined heart rate zones wherein trainee 102 may perform one or more physiological tests while undertaking the training program through the training system 104, and data (e.g., metabolic data) gathered from such tests may be used to recalculate the heart rate training zones (para 35 and claim 5). The disclosures here are considered suggestive that the adjustment is made when the trainee is performing an activity. Therefore it would have been obvious to modify the heart rate zones of Henry et al. to adapt and adjust during performance of the activity to dynamically reflect the user’s actual level of performance thereby maintaining training intensities appropriate to the user’s physiological adaptation and progression.
In regard to claim 27, Henry et al., in view of Shum et al. are considered to describe the invention as claimed, however do not teach receiving second feedback from the remote device; and displaying the second feedback on the portable electronic device. Shum et al. disclose a servant device 211 which is considered to comprise a portable electronic device and a master device 201 which is considered to comprise a remote device. In this manner it is considered that Shum et al. expressly teach transmitting the determined performance parameters to a remote device (para 27 and 56-58, master device 201 creates a training script from user input information, wherein the script may be transmitted to a servant device such as a wearable watch). However, Shum et al. does not teach receiving second feedback from the remote device; and displaying the second feedback on the portable electronic device. Clarke includes the trainee’s monitoring device 114 which communicates training activity to remote system 104, either through an access device or directly in real time. Clarke further teaches that monitoring device 114 is configured to receive and store communications from training system 104 and provide visual and/or audible information to the trainee (para 23). The training system of Clarke includes feedback module 104D, which provides feedback to motivate the trainee in association with performance of training activity (para 22), wherein the feedback may be automatically generated based on the trainee’s actual performance relative to the targets established by the training program (para 47). Clarke establishes that feedback information may be communicated to the trainee from a remote device (i.e., remote training system 104 transmits data to the portable electronic device 114). It is considered to have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system described by Henry et al. and Shum et al. permit the master device to provide feedback information to the servant device as taught by Clarke for display to the user. Such medication would utilize the bidirectional communication between the master and slave devices to provide the user with individualized feedback based on actual performance thereby facilitating adherence to a prescribed training program and guiding subsequent activity.
In regard to claim 28, Henry et al., in view of Shum et al. and Clarke are considered to describe the invention as claimed, wherein Clarke teaches adjusting the upper limit and the lower limit of the second workout zone based on the second feedback. Clarke teaches that the training system may be instructed to modify initial settings (which is considered to include the heart rate zones), wherein the adjustment may be conducted in connection with actual training activities performed by the trainee during a training activity (para 25 and 39). Adjustments may be made to the heart rate for each training zone wherein the whole zone may be shifted up or down using a predetermined variance (para 39-40). The adjustment may be automatic and be based on how much time a trainee has spent within each zone and this is performed to based on changes in training activity, metabolism, or fitness levels that may change for the trainee (para 39-40). This is considered to suggest that the zones upper and lower limits are change by increasing or decreasing zones and are done based on a determined second performance information of the trainee (e.g., a metabolic test or calculation of how much time a trainee has been able to be within a zone). Therefore, it is considered to have been obvious to one of ordinary skill int the art to modify Henry et al. to provide for heart rate zone adjustment in order to adapt training to the physiological adaptation and progression of the trainee.
In regard to claim 29, Henry et al., in view of Shum et al. are considered to describe the invention as claimed, however do not teach receiving a coaching message on the portable electronic device after completion of the activity. Clarke, as relied on above, further teaches providing feedback (considered to be a form of coaching) to provide motivation to the trainee and regarding performance of the training activity (para 22, 29, 47, and 56). Feedback may also be customized and automatically displayed to the trainee regarding actual performance in view of the targets established by the selected training program. In certain embodiments, feedback may be manually input by the coach 110 or another trainer (para 47). The feedback of Clarke regarding actual performance is considered to comprise a message after completion of the activity. Therefore it is considered to have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide coaching messages to the since Clarke demonstrates that feedback in this manner provides motivation to the user and indicates to the user if particular targets were met.
In regard to claim 30, Henry et al., in view of Shum et al. are considered to describe the invention as claimed, however do not teach receiving, on the portable electronic device, a second user input related to the coaching message. Clarke, as relied on above, teaches that feedback may be manually input by a coach or another trainer. The feedback from the coach or other trainer is considered to be a second user input. Therefore it is considered to have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to permit a coach or other trainer provide a second user input in order to provide feedback to the user. Input in this manner is considered expressly taught to be known by Clarke.
In regard to claim 31, Henry et al., in view of Shum et al. are considered to describe the invention as claimed, however do not teach that the coaching message is related to a difficulty level of the activity. Clarke, as relied on above, teaches that feedback may include an "over" or "under" displayed on whether the trainee 102 was over or under the established target time (para 48), or may also include feedback such as "You need to work harder next week” (para 56). This is considered similar to a level of difficulty associated with the activity performed. Therefore it is considered to have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide feedback regarding the level of activity or difficulty of the activity to allow a user to know where the users actual performance compares with the target performance.
Claims 32 and 33 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Henry et al. (US Patent no. 5,769,755 -- disclosed by Applicant) in view of Shum et al. (US Publication no. 2003/0224337 -- disclosed by Applicant) and Clarke (US Publication no. 2006/0228681), further in view of Case et al. (US Publication no. 2006/0136173).
In regard to claims 32 and 33, Henry et al., in view of Shum et al. and Clarke are considered to describe the invention as claimed, however do not teach generating a third zone based on user input wherein the third zone is related to future activity. Henry et al., Shum et al. and Clarke teach workout zones associated with heart rates, wherein multiple zones are determined. Clarke further teaches that the zones may be adjusted based on the user’s physiological adaptation and progression. But none discuss setting zones as future goals. Case et al. describes a system and technique for monitoring athletic performance. Like the cited prior art, Case et al. associates performance with heart rate zones (para 131). The data obtained by the system of Case et al. is used to gauge progress or improvement and to develop future workout routines or plans by setting future goals (para 2, 8, 45, and 91). Therefore, it is considered to have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to analyze the data obtained by Henry et al., Shum et al., and Clarke for devising goals for future performance by an athlete in order to adapt training to the physiological adaptation and progression of the trainee.
Claims 34 and 35 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Henry et al. (US Patent no. 5,769,755 -- disclosed by Applicant) in view of Clarke (US Publication no. 2006/0228681), further in view Shum et al. (US Publication no. 2003/0224337 -- disclosed by Applicant).
In regard to claim 34, Henry et al. disclose a method for providing feedback to an athlete related to an activity, the activity comprising:
receiving, on a portable electronic device, first performance information related to a prior activity of the athlete (col 3 lines 52-60, input means 19 allow a user to input pieces of information such as weight, age, resting heart rate and perceived fitness capacity, wherein this information is considered performance related activity; col 3 lines 40-43, the input means 19 is part of a display 18 that is capable of being attached to the user, and therefore considered to be a portable electronic device; col 4 lines 3-7, the input information may be historical information about the user which is considered to comprise information about prior activity);
generating a workout zone based on the first performance information, the workout zone comprising an upper limit and a lower limit (col 3 line 64 – col 4 line 10, a calculation means 21 estimates a spectrum of exercise intensity levels based on the user input information, wherein the scale of intensity are expressly taught to be zones; col 4 lines 33-36, there are preferable four zones: below training zone, a weight loss training zone, a cardiovascular training zone, and an above training zone dictated by the ranges of heart rates limits taught at col 1 lines 17-56; a zone or range is considered to necessarily comprise an upper limit and a lower limit);
Henry et al. describes the invention as claimed, however does not teach determining second performance information of the athlete during the activity; and adjusting the upper limit and the lower limit based on the second performance information. Clarke teaches that the training system may be instructed to modify initial settings (which is considered to include the heart rate zones), wherein the adjustment may be conducted in connection with actual training activities performed by the trainee during a training activity (para 25 and 39). Adjustments may be made to the heart rate for each training zone wherein the whole zone may be shifted up or down using a predetermined variance (para 39-40). The adjustment may be automatic and be based on how much time a trainee has spent within each zone and this is performed to based on changes in training activity, metabolism, or fitness levels that may change for the trainee (para 39-40). This is considered to suggest that the zones upper and lower limits are change by increasing or decreasing zones and are done based on a determined second performance information of the trainee (e.g., a metabolic test or calculation of how much time a trainee has been able to be within a zone). Therefore, it is considered to have been obvious to one of ordinary skill int the art to modify Henry et al. to provide for heart rate zone adjustment in order to adapt training to the physiological adaptation and progression of the trainee.
Henry et al., nor Clarke, do not expressly teach that the information input by the user include information related to a performance goal. However, this feature is considered to be implied by Henry et al. as the reference recognizes goals (e.g., weight loss, Olympic training, rehabilitation, cardiovascular improvement, and expressly says that “Depending on the exercise goal a particular workout may be created” (col 1 lines 24-26). For this, the Examiner looks to Shum et al. which teaches that a user’s workout may be established in accordance with a desired performance goal (para 3). In particular, Shum et al. explains that individuals exercise to accomplish different objectives such as losing weight, training for a particular sport or athletic event, and improving physical condition, and that different exercise zones are appropriate for different objectives (para 3-5). Shum et al. further teach that a weight loss objective may be pursued by maintaining a user’s heart rate within a particular heart rate zone, and describes electronic training scripts specifying activities and performance conditions, such as heart rate, pace, distance, and duration that the user should achieve during the workout (para 3-6 and 30-34). The training scripts of Shum et al. are created based on user input of performance related goals or objectives, for instance the user is instructed to input an action to be performed and a quantity of the action (para 30), or to input aspects such as the distance, duration, intensity, pace, heart rate etc (para 49-55). Another feature is “heart rate less than or equal to” (para 55) which is considered to be a performance goal set by the user.
In view of this, it is considered to have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and technique of Henry et al. to receive, as part of the user input information, a desired performance or training goal as taught by Shum et al., since Shum et al. teaches that this information is useful to tailor a training program according to the objective sought by the user. Such modification would comprise the application of a known technique (training program based on user goals of Shum et al.) to a known device (device for determining the individualized intensity zones of Henry et al.) to provide workout intensity levels better suited to achieving the exercise benefit sought by the user.
In regard to claim 35, Henry et al. teaches displaying feedback related to the activity, the feedback comprising an indication of whether the athlete's current performance information is within the workout zone (col 4 lines 43-46).
Claims 36-38 and 40 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Henry et al. (US Patent no. 5,769,755 -- disclosed by Applicant) in view of Clarke (US Publication no. 2006/0228681) and Shum et al. (US Publication no. 2003/0224337 -- disclosed by Applicant), further in view of Quatrochi et al. (US Publication no. 2009/0233771).
In regard to claim 36, Henry et al. in view of Clarke and Shum et al. are considered to substantially describe the invention as claimed wherein Henry et al. describe graphically displaying workout zones and providing an indication of a user’s current workout zone, however neither teach the indication comprises an indicator overlaid on top of the graphical representation of the workout zones. Quatrochi et al. describes a system and technique for collection and display of athletic information. Quatrochi et al. teach that an athlete may establish a goal for which a training program to accommodate the goal is generated. Data representing performance of the athlete may be collected, wherein the actual performance of the athlete may be graphically compared to the training program goal. In an embodiment, the actual performance graphical bar may overlay the training program goal bar (para 128). The graphical representation of Quatrochi et al. is considered to comprise an alternative manner for displaying the user’s performance to that of Henry et al. It is considered to have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display of Henry et al. and Clarke to include an overlay of the user’s performance over a graphical display of workout zone as taught by Quatrochi et al. in order to facilitate readily observable graphical comparison between the user’s actual performance from the desired performance represented by the workout zones.
In regard to claim 37, Henry et al. in view of Clarke and Shum et al. further in view of Quatrochi et al. describe the invention as claimed wherein Quatrochi et al. describe the overlaid indicator. Modification to include a second indicator overlaid on the graphical representation of the workout zone, wherein the second indicator is related to a second performance parameter is considered to have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since it would merely comprise a duplication of parts.
In regard to claim 38, Henry et al. in of Clarke, Shum et al. and Quatrochi et al. describe that the positions of the first indicator and the second indicator are adjusted in real time based on the athlete's current performance information (Henry et al., col 4 lines 43-46, the display indicates the current level of exercise intensity, wherein the current level is considered a real time level indicated).
In regard to claim 40, Henry et al. teaches generating a second workout zone based on the user input (col 3 line 64 – col 4 line 10, a calculation means 21 estimates a spectrum of exercise intensity levels based on the user input information, wherein the scale of intensity are expressly taught to be zones; col 4 lines 33-36, there are preferable four zones: below training zone, a weight loss training zone, a cardiovascular training zone, and an above training zone dictated by the ranges of heart rates limits taught at col 1 lines 17-56; a zone or range is considered to necessarily comprise an upper limit and a lower limit).
Claim 39 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Henry et al. (US Patent no. 5,769,755 -- disclosed by Applicant) in view of Clarke (US Publication no. 2006/0228681) and Shum et al. (US Publication no. 2003/0224337 -- disclosed by Applicant), further in view of Shea (US Patent no. 6,050,924 – disclosed by Applicant).
In regard to claim 39, Henry et al. in view of Clarke and Shum et al. suggest the invention as claimed, receiving a user input on the portable electronic device, the user input related to a difficulty level of the activity. Clarke, as relied on above, teaches that feedback may include an "over" or "under" displayed on whether the trainee 102 was over or under the established target time (para 48), or may also include feedback such as "You need to work harder next week” (para 56). This is considered similar to a level of difficulty associated with the activity performed. However, this is not expressly user input from the user performing the activity. Shea is directed to an exercise system that obtains exercise data as a record of workout activities of the user such as exercise performed; initial difficulty level; initial total exercise time; final difficulty level; final total exercise time; certain physiological data such as pulse rate at one or more times during exercise; a flag indicating whether the exercise was completed (col 14 lines 1-10). Additionally, Shea may obtain user input related to the difficulty of the exercise (col 14 lines 8-10; data includes a user’s response about the exercises difficulty such as "1"=too hard, "2"=too easy, "3"=about right). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system described by Henry et al. in view of Clarke and Shum et al. to collect a user’s assessment of difficulty of the exercise performed to account to the user’s perceived exertion and thereby provide subsequent exercise better suited to the user’s fitness level.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Usui et al. (US Patent no. 7,853,428) monitors and athlete’s exercise performance and determines the exercise load or hardless level based on measured physiological information such as heart rate, and graphically displays the determined exercise condition to the athlete, including distinguishing different levels of exercise intensity or difficulty.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN T GEDEON whose telephone number is (571)272-3447. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am to 5:30 PM ET.
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 E. 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.
/BRIAN T GEDEON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796 19 September 2026
Prosecution Insights