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 .
Remarks
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-10 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 8 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arngren et al. (‘Arngren’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20220365604) in view of Toh (Publication Number 20200387956) and further in view of Watterson (Publication Number 20140135173)
As per claim 1, Arngren teaches
A method, comprising: (see abstract and background)
storing
synchronizing the two or more copies of the local database using the local connection; (multiple local databases synchronized, paragraph [0034])
Arngren does not explicitly indicate “querying a network connection between
However, Toh discloses “querying a network connection between
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Arngren and Toh because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by providing many functions to a user even when the internet is not available by allowing a system to store data that is later synchronized with the cloud (see Toh, paragraph [0007]). This gives the user the advantage of more efficient use of expensive resources.
Neither Arngren nor Toh explicitly indicate “establishing a local connection between two or more exercise machines; capturing a stream of performance metrics at the two or more exercise machines;”, “the performance metrics”, “of the two or more exercise machines”, “the two or more exercise machines”, “the two or more exercise machines”.
However, Watterson discloses “establishing a local connection between two or more exercise machines;” (multiple exercise machines located together interconnected via network connections, paragraph [0035]), ”capturing a stream of performance metrics at the two or more exercise machines;”, “the performance metrics” (performance parameters tracked at participants’ exercise machines, paragraph [0045]), “of the two or more exercise machines”, “the two or more exercise machines”, “the two or more exercise machines” (multiple exercise machines, paragraph [0035]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Arngren, Toh and Watterson because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by providing motivation to solitary people using exercise machines by providing interactive social experiences with others (see Watterson, background & paragraph [0034]). This gives the user the advantage of better workout results by allowing people to push themselves during interactions with fellow participants.
In the alternative, neither Arngren, Toh nor Watterson expressly show “performance metrics”.
However, these differences are only found in the nonfunctional descriptive material and are not functionally involved in the steps recited. The capturing and storing steps would be performed the same regardless of the data. Thus, this descriptive material will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability, see In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994). See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to capture and store any type of data having any type of content because such data does not functionally relate to the steps claimed and because the subjective interpretation of the data does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention.
As per claim 2, Arngren teaches
the local connection comprises a Bluetooth connection, a wired connection, or both. (paragraph [0027])
As per claim 8, Arngren teaches
updating the local database continuously as performance metrics are collected
and synchronizing, based at least in part on updating the local database, each of the two or more copies of the local database continuously using the local connection, wherein each of the two or more copies of the local database includes each of
Neither Arngren nor Toh explicitly indicate “at the two or more exercise machines”, “the performance metrics”, “of the two or more exercise machines”.
However, Watterson discloses “at the two or more exercise machines” (multiple exercise machines, paragraph [0035]), “the performance metrics” (performance parameters tracked at participants’ exercise machines, paragraph [0045]), “of the two or more exercise machines” (multiple exercise machines, paragraph [0035]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Arngren, Toh and Watterson because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by providing motivation to solitary people using exercise machines by providing interactive social experiences with others (see Watterson, background & paragraph [0034]). This gives the user the advantage of better workout results by allowing people to push themselves during interactions with fellow participants.
As per claim 19,
This claim is rejected on grounds corresponding to the reasons given above for rejected claim 1 and is similarly rejected.
As per claim 20,
This claim is rejected on grounds corresponding to the reasons given above for rejected claim 1 and is similarly rejected.
Claims 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arngren et al. (‘Arngren’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20220365604) in view of Toh (Publication Number 20200387956) and further in view of Watterson (Publication Number 20140135173) and further in view of Azaria et al. (‘Azaria’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20200054922).
As per claim 3,
Neither Arngren, Toh nor Watterson explicitly indicates “the stream of performance metrics is associated with a video workout program streamed to the two or more exercise machines.”
However, Azaria discloses “the stream of performance metrics is associated with a video workout program streamed to the two or more exercise machines” (parallel play scenario with synchronized activities of collaborating users, sharing audio and video, and statistical data among the user exercise machines, paragraph [0119]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Arngren, Toh, Watterson and Azaria because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by allowing users to experience and practice the coordination needed for synchronized operation as a team (see Azaria, paragraph [0013]). This gives the user the advantage of being able to interactively experience and build teamwork in a virtual environment.
As per claim 4,
Neither Arngren, Toh nor Watterson explicitly indicates “the video workout program comprises a video comprising instructions for performing a workout.”
However, Azaria discloses “the video workout program comprises a video comprising instructions for performing a workout” (scenario with joint collaborative exercise activities, paragraph [0118]; virtual coach with visual representations, paragraph [0115]-[0116]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Arngren, Toh, Watterson and Azaria because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by allowing users to experience and practice the coordination needed for synchronized operation as a team (see Azaria, paragraph [0013]). This gives the user the advantage of being able to interactively experience and build teamwork in a virtual environment.
As per claim 5,
Neither Arngren, Toh nor Watterson explicitly indicates “the video workout program comprises exercise control commands configured to control one or more moveable or moving members of the two or more exercise machines.”
However, Azaria discloses “the video workout program comprises exercise control commands configured to control one or more moveable or moving members of the two or more exercise machines” (user exercise machines apply force on their cables in a slow regular rhythm to coordinate pace, paragraph [0116]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Arngren, Toh, Watterson and Azaria because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by allowing users to experience and practice the coordination needed for synchronized operation as a team (see Azaria, paragraph [0013]). This gives the user the advantage of being able to interactively experience and build teamwork in a virtual environment.
As per claim 6,
Neither Arngren, Toh nor Watterson explicitly indicates “the exercise control commands are synchronized with the instructions for performing the workout; and changes in the video are synchronized with changes in the control of the one or more moveable or moving members of the two or more exercise machines.”
However, Azaria discloses “the exercise control commands are synchronized with the instructions for performing the workout; and changes in the video are synchronized with changes in the control of the one or more moveable or moving members of the two or more exercise machines” (in exercises key aspects involve synchronizing the activities of the collaborating users and sharing audio and video, paragraph [0119]; user exercise machines apply force on their cables in a slow regular rhythm to coordinate pace, paragraph [0116]; virtual coach with visual representations, paragraph [0115]-[0116]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Arngren, Toh, Watterson and Azaria because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by allowing users to experience and practice the coordination needed for synchronized operation as a team (see Azaria, paragraph [0013]). This gives the user the advantage of being able to interactively experience and build teamwork in a virtual environment.
As per claim 7,
Neither Arngren, Toh nor Watterson explicitly indicates “displaying the video synchronously on respective displays of the two or more exercise machines.”
However, Azaria discloses “displaying the video synchronously on respective displays of the two or more exercise machines” (virtual coach with visual representations, paragraph [0115]-[0116]; in exercises key aspects involve synchronizing the activities of the collaborating users and sharing audio and video, paragraph [0119]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Arngren, Toh, Watterson and Azaria because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by allowing users to experience and practice the coordination needed for synchronized operation as a team (see Azaria, paragraph [0013]). This gives the user the advantage of being able to interactively experience and build teamwork in a virtual environment.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arngren et al. (‘Arngren’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20220365604) in view of Toh (Publication Number 20200387956) and further in view of Watterson (Publication Number 20140135173) and further in view of DeGooyer et al. (‘DeGooyer’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20220023739).
As per claim 11,
Arngren does not explicitly indicate “
However, Toh discloses “
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Arngren and Toh because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by providing many functions to a user even when the internet is not available by allowing a system to store data that is later synchronized with the cloud (see Toh, paragraph [0007]). This gives the user the advantage of more efficient use of expensive resources.
Neither Arngren, Toh nor Watterson explicitly indicates “generating,
However, DeGooyer discloses “generating,
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Arngren, Toh, Watterson and DeGooyer because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by providing a way for a user to gauge their position within a similar social group. This gives the user the advantage of having a metric to show how they are performing relative to similar situated users.
Claims 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arngren et al. (‘Arngren’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20220365604) in view of Toh (Publication Number 20200387956) and further in view of Watterson (Publication Number 20140135173) and further in view of Haughay, JR. et al. (‘Haughay, JR.’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20110016120).
As per claim 12,
Arngren does not explicitly indicate “including, by the server after synchronizing the local database with the server database,
However, Toh discloses “including, by the server after synchronizing the local database with the server database,
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Arngren and Toh because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by providing many functions to a user even when the internet is not available by allowing a system to store data that is later synchronized with the cloud (see Toh, paragraph [0007]). This gives the user the advantage of more efficient use of expensive resources.
Neither Arngren, Toh nor Watterson explicitly indicates “metadata associated with a workout with the performance metrics based at least in part on the performance metrics”.
However, Haughay, JR. discloses “metadata associated with a workout with the performance metrics based at least in part on the performance metrics” (storing performance metadata based on the workout performance of one or more users, paragraph [0054]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Arngren, Toh, Watterson and Haughay, JR.because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by being able to customize media based on a user’s workout performance metadata (see Haughay, JR., paragraph [0003]). This gives the user the advantage of providing more desirable media to a user during workouts.
As per claim 13,
Minton v. Nat ’l Ass ’n of Securities Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381, 67 USPQ2d 1614, 1620 (Fed. Cir. 2003) “whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited.” The following types of claim language may raise a question as to its limiting effect: (A) statements of intended use or field of use, including statements of purpose or intended use in the preamble, (B) "adapted to" or "adapted for" clauses, (C) "wherein" or "whereby" clauses, (D) contingent limitations, (E) printed matter, or (F) terms with associated functional language. This list of examples is not intended to be exhaustive. The determination of whether particular language is a limitation in a claim depends on the specific facts of the case. See MPEP 2111.04).
Arngren does not explicitly indicate “storing, by the server, the performance metrics and the metadata in a memory of the server.”
However, Toh discloses “storing, by the server,
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Arngren and Toh because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by providing many functions to a user even when the internet is not available by allowing a system to store data that is later synchronized with the cloud (see Toh, paragraph [0007]). This gives the user the advantage of more efficient use of expensive resources.
Neither Arngren, Toh nor Watterson explicitly indicates “the performance metrics and the metadata”.
However, Haughay, JR. discloses “the performance metrics and the metadata” (storing performance metadata based on the workout performance of one or more users, paragraph [0054]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Arngren, Toh, Watterson and Haughay, JR.because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by being able to customize media based on a user’s workout performance metadata (see Haughay, JR., paragraph [0003]). This gives the user the advantage of providing more desirable media to a user during workouts.
As per claim 14,
Neither Arngren, Toh nor Watterson explicitly indicates “the metadata comprises a workout name, a type associated with the workout, an instructor associated with the workout, a location associated with the workout, a duration associated with the workout, one or more user parameters, one or more user goals, one or more user workout records, a date and time associated with the workout, or any combination thereof”.
However, Haughay, JR. discloses “the metadata comprises a workout name, a type associated with the workout, an instructor associated with the workout, a location associated with the workout, a duration associated with the workout, one or more user parameters, one or more user goals, one or more user workout records, a date and time associated with the workout, or any combination thereof” (storing performance metadata based on the workout performance of one or more users, paragraph [0054]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Arngren, Toh, Watterson and Haughay, JR.because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by being able to customize media based on a user’s workout performance metadata (see Haughay, JR., paragraph [0003]). This gives the user the advantage of providing more desirable media to a user during workouts.
In the alternative, neither Arngren, Toh nor Watterson expressly show “a workout name, a type associated with the workout, an instructor associated with the workout, a location associated with the workout, a duration associated with the workout, one or more user parameters, one or more user goals, one or more user workout records, a date and time associated with the workout, or any combination thereof.”
However, these differences are only found in the nonfunctional descriptive material and are not functionally involved in the steps recited. Thus, this descriptive material will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability, see In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994). See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to having any type of metadata having nay type of content because such data does not functionally relate to the steps claimed and because the subjective interpretation of the data does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention.
As per claim 15,
Neither Arngren, Toh nor Watterson explicitly indicates “designating one of the two or more copies of the local database as a master copy, wherein conflicts between the two or more copies of the local database are resolved in favor of the master copy.”
However, Haughay, JR. discloses “designating one of the two or more copies of the local database as a master copy, wherein conflicts between the two or more copies of the local database are resolved in favor of the master copy” (server coordinate a master version of workout performance metadata, paragraph [0048])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Arngren, Toh, Watterson and Haughay, JR.because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by being able to customize media based on a user’s workout performance metadata (see Haughay, JR., paragraph [0003]). This gives the user the advantage of providing more desirable media to a user during workouts.
As per claim 16,
Arngren does not explicitly indicate “synchronizing the local database with the server comprises: synchronizing
However, Toh discloses “synchronizing the local database with the server comprises: synchronizing
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Arngren and Toh because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by providing many functions to a user even when the internet is not available by allowing a system to store data that is later synchronized with the cloud (see Toh, paragraph [0007]). This gives the user the advantage of more efficient use of expensive resources.
Neither Arngren, Toh nor Watterson explicitly indicates “the master copy”.
However, Haughay, JR. discloses “the master copy” (server coordinate a master version of workout performance metadata, paragraph [0048])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Arngren, Toh, Watterson and Haughay, JR.because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by being able to customize media based on a user’s workout performance metadata (see Haughay, JR., paragraph [0003]). This gives the user the advantage of providing more desirable media to a user during workouts.
As per claim 17,
Neither Arngren nor Toh explicitly indicate “
However, Watterson discloses “
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Arngren, Toh and Watterson because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by providing motivation to solitary people using exercise machines by providing interactive social experiences with others (see Watterson, background & paragraph [0034]). This gives the user the advantage of better workout results by allowing people to push themselves during interactions with fellow participants.
Neither Arngren, Toh nor Watterson explicitly indicates “designating the copy of the local database as the master copy comprises: designating the one of the two or more copies of the local database on
However, Haughay, JR. discloses “designating the copy of the local database as the master copy comprises: designating the one of the two or more copies of the local database on
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Arngren, Toh, Watterson and Haughay, JR.because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by being able to customize media based on a user’s workout performance metadata (see Haughay, JR., paragraph [0003]). This gives the user the advantage of providing more desirable media to a user during workouts.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY A MORRISON whose telephone number is (571)272-7112. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 4:00 pm ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Trujillo K James, can be reached at telephone number (571)272-3677. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/JAY A MORRISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2151
Prosecution Insights