Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 4 is rejected for lack of adequate written description.
Claim 4 is rejected for lack of adequate written description. The claim recites functional steps for which the Applicant has not adequately described the steps in sufficient detail for one of ordinary skill in the art to conclude that the Applicant had possession of the invention.
MPEP 2161.01(I): When examining computer-implemented functional claims, examiners should determine whether the specification discloses the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter. [...] If the specification does not provide a disclosure of the computer and algorithm in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention including how to program the disclosed computer to perform the claimed function, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, for lack of written description must be made. For more information regarding the written description requirement, see MPEP § 2161.01- § 2163.07(b).
Specifically, the claim recites “calculating a composite fitness score based on the tracked fitness indicators” The Applicant has provided no disclosure of how this score is determined by using tacked fitness indicators. Any score could potentially read on the as-claimed invention.
The Specification states at page 21, “a composite fitness score is meticulously calculated. This personalized score is forged by assimilating the data retrieved from the tracked fitness indicators. The sophistication of the algorithm ensures that each component of the individual's fitness is weighted and integrated into an overarching score that vividly reflects their current level of physical conditioning.”
This is inadequate for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (or filing) to conclude that the Applicant had possession of the claimed algorithm. No algorithm is presented.
The Examiner prospectively notes that this written description rejection is not based on whether one skilled in the art would know how to program a computer to perform any form of score (i.e., an enablement rejection), but rather is directed to the Applicant’s lack of specificity as to how the composite fitness score is specifically performed with respect to the Applicant’s claimed invention, i.e., would a potential infringer know the metes and bounds of the Applicant’s invention such that they could avoid infringing the Applicant’s claimed invention. In this case, they would not because the Applicant's description of a composite fitness score claims any and all types of scoring evidencing that the Applicant did not have possession of their invention at the time of filing.
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 1-17 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites a method of training human users. The limitations of:
[… obtaining …] physiological data from [… collected while …] worn by an individual; generating a personalized training program based on the [… obtained …] physiological data; [… providing …] instructions for the personalized training program to […] the individual; continuously monitoring real-time physiological data […] during execution of the training program; analyzing the real-time physiological data to determine performance metrics; providing real-time feedback to the individual based on the performance metrics; and dynamically adjusting the personalized training program based on the analyzed real-time physiological data and performance metrics.
, as drafted, is a system, that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a method of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions) via human interaction with generic computer components. That is, via human interaction with various wearable devices and a user device, the claimed invention amounts to managing personal behavior or interaction between people, the Examiner notes as stated in in 2106.04(a)(2), “certain activity between a person and a computer… may fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping”. For example, but for various wearable devices and a user device the claim encompasses providing instructions to a human user to organize the human user’s interaction with the various generic computer components to organize collected data and providing feedback to further organize the human user’s activity. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of various wearable devices and a user device, which implements the identified abstract idea. The various wearable devices and a user device are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., general purpose computers with processors and memory, performing/ implementing generic computer functions; see Applicant’s specification: Figure 2) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim recites the additional elements of “receiving… transmitting…”. The “receiving… transmitting…” steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of receiving/transmitting data) and amounts to the mere transmission and/or receipt of data, which is a form of extra-solution activity. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does 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, the additional elements of various wearable devices and a user device to perform the noted steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”).
Also as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “receiving… transmitting…” were considered extra-solution activity. The “receiving… transmitting…” has been re-evaluated under the “significantly more” analysis and determined to amount to be well-understood, routine, and conventional elements/functions. As described in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i) “Receiving or transmitting data over a network” is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Well-understood, routine, and conventional elements/functions cannot provide “significantly more.” As such the claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-17 are similarly rejected because either further define the abstract idea and/or do not further limit the claim to a practical application or provide as inventive concept such that the claims are subject matter eligible.
Claims 2-4, 13 further describe the data that is monitored and used to adjust the training program, however do not recite any additional elements sufficient to provide a practical application/significantly more.
Claims 5, 7, 10, 14 recites the additional element of “providing an integrated workspace interface”, however this is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic display interface for presentation of information to a user) and amounts to generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Also, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the “providing an integrated workspace interface” was considered generally linking the abstract idea to particular technological environment. This has been re-evaluated under the “significantly more” analysis and determined to amount to be well-understood, routine, and conventional elements/functions. As described in Aragones (20170266502): see below but at least Figures 10-13; Asikainen (20210008413): see below but at least Figures 5-16; Matsumoto (20210256872): see below but at least Figure 13; displaying data on a graphical user interface is well-understood, routine and conventional. Well-understood, routine, and conventional elements/functions cannot provide “significantly more.” As such the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 6, 12 recites a plurality of team members, however does not recite any additional elements sufficient to provide a practical application/significantly more.
Claim 8 recites adjusting exercises, however do not recite any additional elements sufficient to provide a practical application/significantly more.
Claim 9 describes real-time feedback, however do not recite any additional elements sufficient to provide a practical application/significantly more.
Claim 11 describes nutritional plans, however do not recite any additional elements sufficient to provide a practical application/significantly more.
Claim 15 recites using protocols or rules, however do not recite any additional elements sufficient to provide a practical application/significantly more.
Claim 16 recites the additional elements of using a hub, “pairing…”, a cloud or remote database and “synchronizing…”, however the hub and cloud or remote database recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., general purpose computers with processors and memory, performing/ implementing generic computer functions; see Applicant’s specification: Figure 2) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim recites the additional elements of “pairing…” and “synchronizing…”. The “pairing…” steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general making a connection) amounts to generally linking the abstract idea to particular technological environment. The “synchronizing…” steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as matching data) amounts to generally linking the abstract idea to particular technological environment. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does 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, the additional elements of a hub and a cloud or remote database to perform the noted steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic hardware components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic hardware component cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”).
Also as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “pairing…” and “synchronizing…” were considered extra-solution activity and/or generally linking to a particular technological environment. The “pairing…” has been re-evaluated under the “significantly more” analysis and determined to amount to be well-understood, routine, and conventional elements/functions. As described in Aragones (20170266502): see below but at least paragraphs [0057]-[0060]; Asikainen (20210008413): see below but at least paragraph [0003] and [00035]; Matsumoto (20210256872): see below but at least paragraphs [0133] and [0140]; pairing devices is well-understood, routine, and conventional. The “synchronizing…” has been re-evaluated under the “significantly more” analysis and determined to amount to be well-understood, routine, and conventional elements/functions. As described in Asikainen (20210008413): see below but at least paragraphs [0065] and [0070]; Matsumoto (20210256872): see below but at least paragraph [0064]; Khanvilkar (20230057938): see below but at least paragraph [0045]; syncing data is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Well-understood, routine, and conventional elements/functions cannot provide “significantly more.” As such the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4-9, 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20170266502 (hereafter “Aragones”).
Regarding claim 1, Aragones teaches a method for training individuals (Aragones: paragraph [0006], “systems and methods for creating personalized exercise programs… capture images of a user performing athletic movements… The images may then be evaluated to create a human movement screen score. The human movement screen score may be used to create a personalized exercise program tailored to the specific user”), comprising:
receiving physiological data from wearable devices worn by an individual (Aragones: Figs. 1-2, 5, 8, paragraph [0014], “FIGS. 2A-B illustrate example sensor assemblies that may be worn by a user”, paragraph [0060], “certain measurements may be determined from combining data obtained from two or more devices. Image-capturing device 126 and/or sensor 128 may include or be operatively connected to one or more sensors, including but not limited to… heart rate monitor”, paragraph [0067], “User 124 may possess, carry, and/or wear any number of electronic devices, including sensory devices 138, 140, 142, and/or 144”, paragraph [0077], “As shown in FIG. 2B, device 226… may be configured to be worn by user 124, such as around a wrist, arm, ankle or the like. Device 226 may monitor movements of a user, including, e.g., athletic movements or other activity of user 124. For example, in one embodiment, device 226 may be activity monitor that measures, monitors, tracks or otherwise senses the user's activity (or inactivity)”, paragraph [0094], “Others sensors may include an accelerometer worn on the wrist or embedded in or attached to footwear, a gyroscope, a heart rate monitor, a compass, a location tracking device, such as a GPS device, pressure sensors inserted into footwear or any of the sensors described above that can be used to capture athletic movements and/or athletic performance. The data received from the image capture device and one or more sensors may be used to generate a human movement screen score”, paragraphs [0102]-[0104], “system 300 may obtain information from the user about weight, gender, and age, and create an initial baseline physical fitness level”. Heart rate (i.e., physiological data) is received from a wearable device);
generating a personalized training program based on the received physiological data (Aragones: Figs. 5-8, paragraphs [0094]-[0095], “Others sensors may include an accelerometer worn on the wrist or embedded in or attached to footwear, a gyroscope, a heart rate monitor, a compass, a location tracking device, such as a GPS device, pressure sensors inserted into footwear or any of the sensors described above that can be used to capture athletic movements and/or athletic performance. The data received from the image capture device and one or more sensors may be used to generate a human movement screen score… After a human movement screen score is generated, in step 512 a personalized exercise program is generated based on a human movement screen score. The personalized exercise program may be generated… The human movement screen score may reveal areas that can be improved and the personalized exercise program may address those areas. FIG. 7 illustrates exemplary personalized exercise program phases”, paragraphs [0102]-[0104], “The system may lead the user through an initial set of drills, and set a participation goal… after completing the baseline physical fitness level for the user, the computer 102 may then create an initial personalized program”);
transmitting instructions for the personalized training program to a user device associated with the individual (Aragones: Figs. 1, 5, 8, paragraph [0068], “Devices 138-144 may communicate with each other, either directly or through a network, such as network 132. Communication between one or more of devices 138-144 may communicate through computer 102” paragraph [0092], “instructions to perform athletic movements are provided. The instructions may be generated at a video game console and displayed on a display device, such as a television”, paragraph [0099], “When a user begins an exercise program, the computer 102 may prompt the user to perform a series of exercises”);
continuously monitoring real-time physiological data from the wearable devices during execution of the training program (Aragones: Figs. 1-2, 5, 8, paragraph [0093]-[0095], “capture images of an athlete performing the athletic movements… Others sensors may include an accelerometer worn on the wrist or embedded in or attached to footwear, a gyroscope, a heart rate monitor, a compass, a location tracking device, such as a GPS device, pressure sensors inserted into footwear or any of the sensors described above that can be used to capture athletic movements and/or athletic performance. The data received from the image capture device and one or more sensors may be used to generate a human movement screen score”, paragraph [0097], “captured exercise data may be provided”, paragraph [0100], “monitor the user's form while performing an exercise”, paragraph [0120], “in real-time and over time”);
analyzing the real-time physiological data to determine performance metrics (Aragones: Figs. 1-2, 5, 8, paragraph [0093]-[0095], “The data received from the image capture device and one or more sensors may be used to generate a human movement screen score”, paragraphs [0100]-[0102], “The computer 102 may also score the user's performance of an exercise. Scoring may be based on the user's form, how quickly the user was able to complete the exercise (e.g., 20 pushups in 60 seconds), a number of repetitions the user completed, the amount of weight the user used during an exercise, or other exercise metric… Score may be a function of a particular drill and may be focused on position, accuracy and correct execution. Scoring may also be based on time and/or a number sets or repetitions within a set time period”. The Examiner notes this score reads on performance metrics under the broadest reasonable interpretation);
providing real-time feedback to the individual based on the performance metrics (Aragones: Figs. 1-2, 5, 8, paragraph [0100], “the computer 102 may provide the user with feedback identifying the body part and a correction to the user's form” paragraphs [0119]-[0121], “The computer 102 may also provide encouragement to the user to keep going (e.g., just 5 more repetitions) as well as feedback… The feedback may allow the user to compete against their own benchmarks to see improvement in real-time and over time… providing the user with feedback on their form… the system may use data points to determine feedback and motivation to provide to a user during a workout session”, paragraph [0123], “The computer 102 may also provide the user with feedback on their form, and may indicate a number of repetitions in the preferred, red, and green zones, discussed above, for each of the exercise drill”); and
dynamically adjusting the personalized training program based on the analyzed real-time physiological data and performance metrics (Aragones: Figs. 1-2, 5, 8, paragraphs [0096]-[0098], “The personal training system may modify the exercise program to reschedule the exercise to another day. Other changes to the exercise program may also be made to keep the user on track to reach goals. The personal training system may even add calendar events to the user's calendar… When sensor data is received, in step 518, the personal training system may modify the personalized exercise program based on the exercise data captured by the sensor. Modifications may include one or more changes to the types of exercises or durations of exercises”, paragraph [0104], “The computer 102 may evaluate the user's fitness level over time to confirm the user input fitness level or to adjust exercises based on measured performance rather than the user specified fitness level”, paragraph [0120], “in real-time and over time”).
Regrading claim 4, Aragones teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the personalized training program is designed to improve overall fitness (Aragones: Figs. 5-8, paragraph [0092], “athletic movements include deep squat, hurdle step, in-line lunge, shoulder mobility, active leg raise, push up and rotary stability. FIG. 6 show exemplary instructions that may be provided to a user to perform the athletic movements”, paragraphs [0094]-[0095], “After a human movement screen score is generated, in step 512 a personalized exercise program is generated based on a human movement screen score. The personalized exercise program may be generated… The human movement screen score may reveal areas that can be improved and the personalized exercise program may address those areas. FIG. 7 illustrates exemplary personalized exercise program phases”, paragraphs [0102]-[0104], “The system may lead the user through an initial set of drills, and set a participation goal… after completing the baseline physical fitness level for the user, the computer 102 may then create an initial personalized program”. The Examiner notes that “to improve overall fitness” is an intended use of the personalized training program that is not required to occur. This feature has been fully considered by the Examiner; however, the limitation does not provide patentable distinction over the cited prior art because it is an intended use or result of the personalized training program), and
wherein the method further comprises tracking multiple fitness indicators including heart rate variability, resting heart rate, and activity levels using the wearable devices (Aragones: Figs. 1-2, 5, 8, paragraph [0014], “FIGS. 2A-B illustrate example sensor assemblies that may be worn by a user”, paragraph [0060], “certain measurements may be determined from combining data obtained from two or more devices. Image-capturing device 126 and/or sensor 128 may include or be operatively connected to one or more sensors, including but not limited to… heart rate monitor”, paragraph [0067], “User 124 may possess, carry, and/or wear any number of electronic devices, including sensory devices 138, 140, 142, and/or 144”, paragraph [0077], “As shown in FIG. 2B, device 226… may be configured to be worn by user 124, such as around a wrist, arm, ankle or the like. Device 226 may monitor movements of a user, including, e.g., athletic movements or other activity of user 124. For example, in one embodiment, device 226 may be activity monitor that measures, monitors, tracks or otherwise senses the user's activity (or inactivity)”, paragraph [0094], “Others sensors may include an accelerometer worn on the wrist or embedded in or attached to footwear, a gyroscope, a heart rate monitor, a compass, a location tracking device, such as a GPS device, pressure sensors inserted into footwear or any of the sensors described above that can be used to capture athletic movements and/or athletic performance. The data received from the image capture device and one or more sensors may be used to generate a human movement screen score”, paragraph [0100], “The desired data set may include multiple comparison points throughout an exercise… The desired data set may specify comparison points for each of these events focusing on certain body parts”, paragraphs [0102]-[0104], “system 300 may obtain information from the user about weight, gender, and age, and create an initial baseline physical fitness level”, paragraph [0117], “With reference to FIG. 26, the workout plan may specify a number of sets, an amount of time of exercise, and an amount of time of rest”. The collected data is compared during resting and activity which teaches activity and heart rate tracking as required);
calculating a composite fitness score based on the tracked fitness indicators (Aragones: Figs. 1-2, 5, 8, paragraph [0093]-[0095], “The data received from the image capture device and one or more sensors may be used to generate a human movement screen score”, paragraphs [0100]-[0102], “The computer 102 may also score the user's performance of an exercise. Scoring may be based on the user's form, how quickly the user was able to complete the exercise (e.g., 20 pushups in 60 seconds), a number of repetitions the user completed, the amount of weight the user used during an exercise, or other exercise metric… Score may be a function of a particular drill and may be focused on position, accuracy and correct execution. Scoring may also be based on time and/or a number sets or repetitions within a set time period”. The Examiner notes this is a composite score under the broadest reasonable interpretation);
providing periodic fitness assessments to the individual based on changes in the composite fitness score; and progressively increasing an intensity and complexity of the training program as a composite fitness score improves (Aragones: Figs. 1-2, 5, 8, paragraphs [0096]-[0098], “The personal training system may modify the exercise program to reschedule the exercise to another day. Other changes to the exercise program may also be made to keep the user on track to reach goals. The personal training system may even add calendar events to the user's calendar… When sensor data is received, in step 518, the personal training system may modify the personalized exercise program based on the exercise data captured by the sensor. Modifications may include one or more changes to the types of exercises or durations of exercises”, paragraph [0104], “The computer 102 may evaluate the user's fitness level over time to confirm the user input fitness level or to adjust exercises based on measured performance rather than the user specified fitness level”, paragraphs [0118]-[0120], “Challenges are increased over time by adding repetitions and equipment. As the user conquers a workout, they are given a new routine to learn, providing an intrinsic reward… in real-time and over time”).
Regrading claim 5, Aragones teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches comprising providing a high-performance team management platform by: a. generating a customized strength and conditioning program based on the user data (Aragones: Figs. 5-8, paragraphs [0094]-[0095], “Others sensors may include an accelerometer worn on the wrist or embedded in or attached to footwear, a gyroscope, a heart rate monitor, a compass, a location tracking device, such as a GPS device, pressure sensors inserted into footwear or any of the sensors described above that can be used to capture athletic movements and/or athletic performance. The data received from the image capture device and one or more sensors may be used to generate a human movement screen score… After a human movement screen score is generated, in step 512 a personalized exercise program is generated based on a human movement screen score. The personalized exercise program may be generated… The human movement screen score may reveal areas that can be improved and the personalized exercise program may address those areas. FIG. 7 illustrates exemplary personalized exercise program phases”, paragraphs [0102]-[0104], “The system may lead the user through an initial set of drills, and set a participation goal… after completing the baseline physical fitness level for the user, the computer 102 may then create an initial personalized program”);
b. providing an integrated workspace interface for accessing a strength and conditioning program (Aragones: Figs. 1-2, 5, 8, paragraph [0017], “FIGS. 8A-8B are several views showing an example graphical user interface configured for displaying a health, wellness, and fitness profile and health score for an individual”, paragraph [0052], “displayed as a dashboard screen on a graphical user interface made available to the individual 20 by accessing their account. An example of a graphical user interface configured for displaying a health, wellness, and fitness profile and health score is further described herein with respect to FIGS. 8A-8B”. The Examiner notes that “for accessing a strength and conditioning program” is an intended use of the integrated workspace interface that is not required to occur. This feature has been fully considered by the Examiner; however, the limitation does not provide patentable distinction over the cited prior art because it is an intended use or result of the integrated workspace interface);
c. monitoring team performance metrics through a workspace (Aragones: Figs. 1-2, 5, 8, paragraph [0052], “displayed as a dashboard screen on a graphical user interface made available to the individual 20 by accessing their account. An example of a graphical user interface configured for displaying a health, wellness, and fitness profile and health score is further described herein with respect to FIGS. 8A-8B”, paragraph [0105], “The GUI may also present the user with options to buddy up or to join a group where a user may be networked (e.g., via the Internet) with at least one other user to exercise at the same time”, paragraph [0131], “Also, the computer 102 may join an online challenge where a user may compete against another player who is also online. The online challenge may permit competitions with multiple other players. Competitions may be organized by age group, fitness level, invitation only, achieving a certain point levels, or in other manners. A ghost of the leader may be presented by the displays of all other challengers. The computer 102 may also cause a display to present a leader board showing how a user compares to other participants. Performance data, such as personal bests, may be communicated graphically and through audio devices”); and
d. adjusting strength and conditioning program based on monitored performance metrics (Aragones: Figs. 1-2, 5, 8, paragraphs [0096]-[0098], “The personal training system may modify the exercise program to reschedule the exercise to another day. Other changes to the exercise program may also be made to keep the user on track to reach goals. The personal training system may even add calendar events to the user's calendar… When sensor data is received, in step 518, the personal training system may modify the personalized exercise program based on the exercise data captured by the sensor. Modifications may include one or more changes to the types of exercises or durations of exercises”, paragraph [0104], “The computer 102 may evaluate the user's fitness level over time to confirm the user input fitness level or to adjust exercises based on measured performance rather than the user specified fitness level”, paragraph [0120], “in real-time and over time”).
Regrading claim 6, Aragones teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches wherein strength and conditioning program includes personalized workout routines for each team member (Aragones: Figs. 5-8, paragraph [0092], “athletic movements include deep squat, hurdle step, in-line lunge, shoulder mobility, active leg raise, push up and rotary stability. FIG. 6 show exemplary instructions that may be provided to a user to perform the athletic movements”, paragraphs [0094]-[0095], “After a human movement screen score is generated, in step 512 a personalized exercise program is generated based on a human movement screen score. The personalized exercise program may be generated… The human movement screen score may reveal areas that can be improved and the personalized exercise program may address those areas. FIG. 7 illustrates exemplary personalized exercise program phases”, paragraphs [0102]-[0104], “The system may lead the user through an initial set of drills, and set a participation goal… after completing the baseline physical fitness level for the user, the computer 102 may then create an initial personalized program”, paragraph [0105], “The GUI may also present the user with options to buddy up or to join a group where a user may be networked (e.g., via the Internet) with at least one other user to exercise at the same time”, paragraph [0131], “Also, the computer 102 may join an online challenge where a user may compete against another player who is also online”. There are groups or teams and each user has their own personalized exercise program which reads on what is required under the broadest reasonable interpretation).
Regrading claim 7, Aragones teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches scheduling team training sessions through integrated workspace interface and monitoring team performance metrics includes tracking individual athlete progress (Aragones: Figs. 1-2, 5, 8, paragraph [0052], “displayed as a dashboard screen on a graphical user interface made available to the individual 20 by accessing their account. An example of a graphical user interface configured for displaying a health, wellness, and fitness profile and health score is further described herein with respect to FIGS. 8A-8B”, paragraph [0096], “a user may have an exercise session scheduled”, paragraph [0105], “The GUI may also present the user with options to buddy up or to join a group where a user may be networked (e.g., via the Internet) with at least one other user to exercise at the same time”, paragraph [0131], “Also, the computer 102 may join an online challenge where a user may compete against another player who is also online. The online challenge may permit competitions with multiple other players. Competitions may be organized by age group, fitness level, invitation only, achieving a certain point levels, or in other manners. A ghost of the leader may be presented by the displays of all other challengers. The computer 102 may also cause a display to present a leader board showing how a user compares to other participants. Performance data, such as personal bests, may be communicated graphically and through audio devices”, claim 15, “present the user with an option to join a scheduled exercise session to complete the personalized exercise program”).
Regrading claim 8, Aragones teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches wherein adjusting strength and conditioning program includes modifying exercise intensity based on individual athlete progress (Aragones: Figs. 1-2, 5, 8, paragraphs [0096]-[0098], “the personal training system may modify the personalized exercise program based on the exercise data captured by the sensor. Modifications may include one or more changes to the types of exercises or durations of exercises”, paragraph [0104], “The computer 102 may evaluate the user's fitness level over time to confirm the user input fitness level or to adjust exercises based on measured performance rather than the user specified fitness level”, paragraphs [0118]-[0120], “Challenges are increased over time by adding repetitions and equipment. As the user conquers a workout, they are given a new routine to learn, providing an intrinsic reward… in real-time and over time”).
Regrading claim 9, Aragones teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches further comprising providing real-time feedback to athletes during workout sessions (Aragones: Figs. 1-2, 5, 8, paragraph [0098], “an exercise session”, paragraph [0100], “the computer 102 may provide the user with feedback identifying the body part and a correction to the user's form” paragraphs [0119]-[0121], “The computer 102 may also provide encouragement to the user to keep going (e.g., just 5 more repetitions) as well as feedback… The feedback may allow the user to compete against their own benchmarks to see improvement in real-time and over time… providing the user with feedback on their form… the system may use data points to determine feedback and motivation to provide to a user during a workout session”, paragraph [0123], “The computer 102 may also provide the user with feedback on their form, and may indicate a number of repetitions in the preferred, red, and green zones, discussed above, for each of the exercise drill”).
Regrading claim 12, Aragones teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches wherein monitoring team performance metrics includes analyzing biomechanical data collected during training sessions (Aragones: Figs. 1-2, 5, 8, paragraph [0067], “User 124 may possess, carry, and/or wear any number of electronic devices, including sensory devices 138, 140, 142, and/or 144”, paragraph [0077], “As shown in FIG. 2B, device 226… may be configured to be worn by user 124, such as around a wrist, arm, ankle or the like. Device 226 may monitor movements of a user, including, e.g., athletic movements or other activity of user 124. For example, in one embodiment, device 226 may be activity monitor that measures, monitors, tracks or otherwise senses the user's activity (or inactivity)”, paragraph [0094], “Others sensors may include an accelerometer worn on the wrist or embedded in or attached to footwear, a gyroscope, a heart rate monitor, a compass, a location tracking device, such as a GPS device, pressure sensors inserted into footwear or any of the sensors described above that can be used to capture athletic movements and/or athletic performance. The data received from the image capture device and one or more sensors may be used to generate a human movement screen score”, paragraph [0098], “an exercise session”).
Regrading claim 14, Aragones teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches further comprising providing virtual coaching sessions through an integrated workspace interface (Aragones: Figs. 1-2, 5, 8, paragraph [0098], “an exercise session”, paragraph [0100], “the computer 102 may provide the user with feedback identifying the body part and a correction to the user's form”, paragraphs [0103]-[0105], “provide the user with information and coaching on exercises”, paragraphs [0119]-[0121], “The computer 102 may also provide encouragement to the user to keep going (e.g., just 5 more repetitions) as well as feedback… The feedback may allow the user to compete against their own benchmarks to see improvement in real-time and over time… providing the user with feedback on their form… the system may use data points to determine feedback and motivation to provide to a user during a workout session”, paragraph [0123], “The computer 102 may also provide the user with feedback on their form, and may indicate a number of repetitions in the preferred, red, and green zones, discussed above, for each of the exercise drill”).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2, 10, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20170266502 (hereafter “Aragones”), in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20210008413 (hereafter “Asikainen”).
Regrading claim 2, Aragones teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the personalized training program includes specific exercises and routines designed to improve blood pressure (Aragones: Figs. 5-8, paragraph [0092], “athletic movements include deep squat, hurdle step, in-line lunge, shoulder mobility, active leg raise, push up and rotary stability. FIG. 6 show exemplary instructions that may be provided to a user to perform the athletic movements”, paragraphs [0094]-[0095], “After a human movement screen score is generated, in step 512 a personalized exercise program is generated based on a human movement screen score. The personalized exercise program may be generated… The human movement screen score may reveal areas that can be improved and the personalized exercise program may address those areas. FIG. 7 illustrates exemplary personalized exercise program phases”, paragraphs [0102]-[0104], “The system may lead the user through an initial set of drills, and set a participation goal… after completing the baseline physical fitness level for the user, the computer 102 may then create an initial personalized program”. The Examiner notes that “to improve blood pressure” is an intended use of the personalized training program that is not required to occur. This feature has been fully considered by the Examiner; however, the limitation does not provide patentable distinction over the cited prior art because it is an intended use or result of the personalized training program), and
wherein the method further comprises monitoring blood pressure data from the wearable devices before, during, and after execution of the training program; analyzing trends in blood pressure data; and modifying the training program to optimize blood pressure improvement based on the analyzed trends.
Aragones may not explicitly teach (underlined below for clarity):
wherein the method further comprises monitoring blood pressure data from the wearable devices before, during, and after execution of the training program; analyzing trends in blood pressure data; and modifying the training program to optimize blood pressure improvement based on the analyzed trends.
Asikainen teaches wherein the method further comprises monitoring blood pressure data from the wearable devices before, during, and after execution of the training program; analyzing trends in blood pressure data; and modifying the training program to optimize blood pressure improvement based on the analyzed trends (Asikainen: paragraph [0046], “FIG. 1B is a diagram illustrating an example configuration for tracking physical activity of a user performing exercise movements and providing feedback and recommendations relating to performing the exercise movements. As depicted, the example configuration includes the interactive personal training device 108 equipped with the sensor(s) 109 configured to capture a video of a scene in which user 106 is performing the exercise movement… transmit recorded IMU sensor data and recorded vital signs and health status information (e.g., heart rate, blood pressure, etc.) during the performance of the exercise movement to the interactive personal training device 108”).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to include using blood pressure data within the tracking of physiological data to create and modify a personalized exercise program for a user as taught by Aragones with the motivation of “improve their performance” (Asikainen: paragraph [0099]).
Regrading claim 10, Aragones teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches wherein an integrated workspace interface includes a communication platform for team members […] (Aragones: Figs. 1-2, 5, 8, paragraph [0017], “FIGS. 8A-8B are several views showing an example graphical user interface configured for displaying a health, wellness, and fitness profile and health score for an individual”, paragraph [0052], “displayed as a dashboard screen on a graphical user interface made available to the individual 20 by accessing their account. An example of a graphical user interface configured for displaying a health, wellness, and fitness profile and health score is further described herein with respect to FIGS. 8A-8B”, paragraphs [0103]-[0105], “provide the user with information and coaching on exercises… The GUI may also present the user with options to buddy up or to join a group where a user may be networked”, paragraph [0122], “The computer 102 may also send a message to a user's device”, paragraph [0131], “The computer 102 may also cause a display to present a leader board showing how a user compares to other participants”).
Aragones may not explicitly teach (underlined below for clarity):
wherein an integrated workspace interface includes a communication platform for team members and coaches.
Asikainen teaches wherein an integrated workspace interface includes a communication platform for team members and coaches (Asikainen: Figs. 1, 12-16, paragraph [0037], “he online service 111 allows users to share content with other users (e.g., friends, contacts, public, similar users, etc.)”, paragraph [0102], “he program enhancement engine 214 may include software and/or logic to provide functionality for enhancing one or more workout programs created by third-party content providers or users, such as personal trainers, coaches, and pro-athletes. The program enhancement engine 214 provides access to personal trainers, coaches, and pro-athletes to create a set of exercise movements or workouts that may be enhanced using the feedback engine 208”).
The motivation to combine is the same as in claim 2, incorporated herein.
Regrading claim 13, Aragones teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches wherein monitoring team performance metrics includes tracking […] fatigue levels of individual athletes (Aragones: Figs. 1-2, 5, 8, paragraph [0052], “displayed as a dashboard screen on a graphical user interface made available to the individual 20 by accessing their account. An example of a graphical user interface configured for displaying a health, wellness, and fitness profile and health score is further described herein with respect to FIGS. 8A-8B”, paragraph [0105], “The GUI may also present the user with options to buddy up or to join a group where a user may be networked (e.g., via the Internet) with at least one other user to exercise at the same time”, paragraph [0124], “The computer 102 may also calculate a fatigue index indicating how well the user maintained good form over the duration of a drill”, paragraph [0131], “Also, the computer 102 may join an online challenge where a user may compete against another player who is also online. The online challenge may permit competitions with multiple other players. Competitions may be organized by age group, fitness level, invitation only, achieving a certain point levels, or in other manners. A ghost of the leader may be presented by the displays of all other challengers. The computer 102 may also cause a display to present a leader board showing how a user compares to other participants. Performance data, such as personal bests, may be communicated graphically and through audio devices”).
Aragones may not explicitly teach (underlined below for clarity):
wherein monitoring team performance metrics includes tracking recovery and fatigue levels of individual athletes.
Asikainen teaches wherein monitoring team performance metrics includes tracking recovery and fatigue levels of individual athletes (Asikainen: paragraph [0087], “the performance tracker 314 determines a recovery rate indicating how fast a user recovers from a set or workout session using the metrics output, such as power generated, time-under-tension, total weight volume, duration of activity, heart rate, detected facial expression, breathing intensity, and breathing rate.”).
The motivation to combine is the same as in claim 2, incorporated herein.
Regrading claim 15, Aragones teaches the limitations of claim 1, but may not explicitly teach wherein a strength and conditioning program includes injury prevention protocols.
Asikainen teaches wherein a strength and conditioning program includes injury prevention protocols (Asikainen: paragraph [0084], “determine the conditions for a proper form. The form may be defined as a specific way of performing the exercise movement to avoid injury, maximize benefit, and increase strength. To this end, the personal trainer may define the position, angle, distance, and orientation of joints, wrists, ankles, elbows, knees, back, head, etc. in the recognized way of performing a repetition of the exercise movement”).
The motivation to combine is the same as in claim 2, incorporated herein.
Claim(s) 3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20170266502 (hereafter “Aragones”), in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20210256872 (hereafter “Matsumoto”).
Regrading claim 3, Aragones teaches the limitations of claim 1, but may not explicitly teach wherein the personalized training program includes nutritional guidance and physical activities designed to regulate glucose levels, and wherein the method further comprises continuously monitoring glucose levels using at least one of the wearable devices; identifying patterns in glucose fluctuations in response to different activities and nutritional intake; and adjusting the training program and nutritional guidance to optimize glucose regulation based on the identified patterns.
Matsumoto teaches wherein the personalized training program includes nutritional guidance and physical activities designed to regulate glucose levels (Matsumoto: Figs. 3, 5-8, paragraph [0013], “generating a personalized blood glucose regulation model for an individual based on data and signals of the individual. The personalized blood glucose regulation model can be used… to regulate or maintain blood glucose level, and to assist health care professionals in providing personalized blood glucose regulation optimization strategies and safety actions for an individual. For example, the personalized blood glucose regulation model can be used to… optimize nutritional and physical activities plans, recommend preventive and corrective actions, send signals, such as alerts and commands, to insulin delivery devices”), and
wherein the method further comprises continuously monitoring glucose levels using at least one of the wearable devices (Matsumoto: Figs. 3, 5-8, paragraph [0066], “glucometers 101 (e.g., continuous glucose monitors (CGM), blood glucose meters using test strips, and non-invasive blood glucose meters), insulin delivery devices 102 (e.g., insulin delivery syringes, pens, pumps, or artificial pancreas systems), activity tracking devices 103 (e.g., fitness trackers, smartwatches, or other wearable or implantable sensors)”, paragraph [0090], “wearable fitness devices may provide more reliable and accurate data than mobile phones”, paragraph [0150], “The data collected from data collection devices 640 may include one or more of the nutritional intake data, blood glucose level measurements, insulin intake data, physical activity data, patient profile data, body index data, or demographics data described above”);
identifying patterns in glucose fluctuations in response to different activities and nutritional intake; and adjusting the training program and nutritional guidance to optimize glucose regulation based on the identified patterns (Matsumoto: Figs. 3, 5-8, paragraph [0013], “generating a personalized blood glucose regulation model for an individual based on data and signals of the individual. The personalized blood glucose regulation model can be used… to regulate or maintain blood glucose level, and to assist health care professionals in providing personalized blood glucose regulation optimization strategies and safety actions for an individual. For example, the personalized blood glucose regulation model can be used to… optimize nutritional and physical activities plans, recommend preventive and corrective actions, send signals, such as alerts and commands, to insulin delivery devices”, paragraph [0060], “identifying risks and patterns of blood glucose excursions, titrate insulin doses, optimize nutritional and physical activities plans”, paragraph [0102], “train or determine a set of parameters of a personalized blood glucose regulation model for an individual using an optimization algorithm”, paragraph [0153], “personalized recommendation generation process 500 may include one or more steps to provide personalized blood glucose regulation optimization strategies (e.g., bolus and/or basal insulin titration or therapy, nutritional plans, or physical activity plans)”, paragraph [0160], “adjust nutritional intake and/or physical activity”).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to include using glucose and nutrition as taught by Matsumoto within the physiological tracking and personalization of exercise plans as taught by Aragones with the motivation of “improve safety of the individual” (Matsumoto: Abstract).
Regrading claim 11, Aragones teaches the limitations of claim 1, but may not explicitly teach integrating nutrition planning into strength and conditioning program.
Matsumoto teaches integrating nutrition planning into strength and conditioning program (Matsumoto: Figs. 3, 5-8, paragraph [0013], “generating a personalized blood glucose regulation model for an individual based on data and signals of the individual. The personalized blood glucose regulation model can be used… to regulate or maintain blood glucose level, and to assist health care professionals in providing personalized blood glucose regulation optimization strategies and safety actions for an individual. For example, the personalized blood glucose regulation model can be used to… optimize nutritional and physical activities plans, recommend preventive and corrective actions, send signals, such as alerts and commands, to insulin delivery devices”, paragraph [0153], “personalized recommendation generation process 500 may include one or more steps to provide personalized blood glucose regulation optimization strategies (e.g., bolus and/or basal insulin titration or therapy, nutritional plans, or physical activity plans)”, paragraph [0160], “adjust nutritional intake and/or physical activity”).
The motivation to combine is the same as in claim 3, incorporated herein.
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20170266502 (hereafter “Aragones”), in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20230057938 (hereafter “Khanvilkar”), further in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20220292789 (hereafter “Caswell”).
Regrading claim 16, Aragones teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches pairing selected mobile devices with a hub (Aragones: Figures 1-2, paragraphs [0057]-[0060], “computer 102 may comprise a set-top box (STB), desktop computer, digital video recorder(s) (DVR), computer server(s), and/or any other desired computing device. In certain configurations, computer 102 may comprise a gaming console… One or more embodiments may utilize one or more wired and/or wireless technologies, alone or in combination, wherein examples of wireless technologies include Bluetooth® technologies, Bluetooth® low energy technologies, and/or ANT technologies”, paragraph [0068], “Devices 138-144 may communicate with each other, either directly or through a network, such as network 132. Communication between one or more of devices 138-144 may communicate through computer 102”, paragraph [0077], “device 226 may wirelessly interact with a remote website such as a site dedicated to fitness or health related subject matter… device 226 may interact with a mobile device, such as device 138, as to an application dedicated to fitness or health related subject matter. In these or other embodiments, device 226 may interest with both a mobile device as to an application as above, such as device 138, and a remote website, such as a site dedicated to fitness or health related subject matter”),
wherein the selected mobile devices have at least two different profiles […] to different databases that do not share data or interoperate with each other (Aragones: Figures 1-2, paragraph [0067], “brand devices available from Apple, Inc. of Cupertino, Calif. Or… Microsoft® Windows devices available from Microsoft of Redmond, Wash”, paragraph [0077], “device 226 may wirelessly interact with a remote website such as a site dedicated to fitness or health related subject matter, either directly or indirectly… upload data from a portable device with a relatively smaller memory to a larger device with a larger quantity of memory. Communication between device 226 and other devices may be done wirelessly”. The Examiner notes Apples and Windows are different operating systems and teach the required different profiles for different databases that do not share data or interoperate with each other, under the broadest reasonable interpretation); […];
uploading the copied data structures to a remote server (Aragones: Figures 1-2, paragraph [0077], “device 226 may wirelessly interact with a remote website such as a site dedicated to fitness or health related subject matter, either directly or indirectly… upload data from a portable device with a relatively smaller memory to a larger device with a larger quantity of memory. Communication between device 226 and other devices may be done wirelessly”); […].
Aragones may not explicitly teach (underlined below for clarity):
wherein the selected mobile devices have at least two different profiles syncing to different databases that do not share data or interoperate with each other;
parsing the data based on each device manufacturer data structure; and
synchronizing the parsed data with a cloud or remote database to provide a single point access to data from all selected mobile devices.
Khanvilkar teaches wherein the selected mobile devices have at least two different profiles syncing to different databases that do not share data or interoperate with each other (Khanvilkar: Figs. 2, 7, paragraph [0003], “fitness activity data is viewable directly on a tracker device or through application provided by device manufacturer or some third-party application installed on a phone that is paired with a fitness activity tracker. These activity trackers consist of various sensors for tracking activities and for synchronizing data to a mobile device”, paragraph [0045], “Synchronic control 570 provides consolidation of fitness activity data from fitness activity trackers #1 510, #2 513, #n 514 and/or mobile device(s) 520”, paragraphs [0047]-[0048], “For example, FitBit® trackers provides Web APIs to access user activity data through HTTP requests using a FitBit® tracker account as per its defined rules… There are many other fitness activity trackers #1 510, #2 513, #n 514 like Apple's HealthKit® application, Google Fit® application, etc., that provide a similar platform. As of now, there are no standard defined on data accessibility from so called health devices, e.g., fitness activity trackers fitness activity trackers #1 510, #2 513, #n 514.”);
parsing the data based on each device manufacturer data structure (Khanvilkar: Figs. 2, 7, paragraph [0047], “Access to user fitness activity tracker accounts 552 may be controlled according to rules defined by a fitness activity tracker manufacturer”, paragraph [0051], “Selection of the synchronize now button 640 provides consolidation of fitness activity data from fitness activity trackers and/or mobile device(s). Fitness activity data may include fitness or health data such as a number of steps taken by a user, a user's heart rate data (e.g., instantaneous or average), sleeping patterns, active time tracking, exercise routines, stress levels, calories used, a current or average blood pressure, a blood glucose measurement, fitness or health suggestions, etc.”); and
synchronizing the parsed data with a cloud or remote database to provide a single point access to data from all selected mobile devices (Khanvilkar: Figs. 2, 7, paragraph [0006], “wherein the mobile phones sends the fitness activity data associated with the at least one registered user to the server, which may be a local server or a remote cloud server”, paragraph [0040], “A synchronic control 570 is provided in GUI 564 for synchronizing fitness activity data.”, paragraph [0045], “Synchronic control 570 provides consolidation of fitness activity data from fitness activity trackers #1 510, #2 513, #n 514 and/or mobile device(s) 520”. The Examiner notes that “to provide a single point access to data” is an intended use of the synchronizing that is not required to occur. This feature has been fully considered by the Examiner; however, the limitation does not provide patentable distinction over the cited prior art because it is an intended use or result of the synchronizing).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to include synchronization of data as taught by Khanvilkar within the use of pairing various devices and a hub as taught by Aragones with the motivation of “help attain a user's health and fitness goals” (Khanvilkar: paragraph [0003]).
Aragones and Khanvilkar may not explicitly teach (underlined below for clarity):
automatically copying data structures in each mobile device when the mobile device within a range of the hub;
Caswell teaches automatically copying data structures in each mobile device when the mobile device within a range of the hub (Caswell: paragraph [0528], “sending a copy of that data structure”, claim 1, “provide a copy of a data structure of the plurality of data structures to the portable electronic device of the plurality of portable electronic devices when a location of the portable electronic device is within a threshold distance of a location associated with the data structure”);
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to include using copying of data structures within a range of a hub as taught by Caswell within the synchronization of data as taught by Aragones and Khanvilkar with the motivation of “improve its tracking” (Caswell: paragraph [0499]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20120191469 (hereafter “Akradi”) teaches providing fitness plans and dynamically evaluating performance for updates to the plan.
U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20230293943 (hereafter “Carpenter”) teaches training plan delivery and monitoring via a community of devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrew E Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-8323. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shahid Merchant can be reached on 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.
/A.E.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3684
/Shahid Merchant/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3684