DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Is the claimed invention a statutory category of invention?
Claims 1, 19 and 20 are directed to a computer system / computer program / a method configured to communicate with a display generation component (Step 1, Yes).
Step 2A, Prong 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea?
The limitation of steps: … prior to initiating a workout session, prompting a user of the computer system to input a distance associated with the workout session; after prompting the user of the computer system to input the distance associated with the workout session, detecting, via the one or more input devices, one or more user inputs selecting the distance associated with the workout session; and after receiving the one or more user inputs selecting the distance associated with the workout session: in accordance with a determination that the distance associated with the workout session satisfies a set of criteria, initiating the workout session; and in accordance with a determination that the distance associated with the workout session does not satisfy the set of criteria, displaying, via the display generation component, a notification without initiating the workout session, wherein the notification includes: a first selectable user interface object that, when selected via user input, initiates a process to update one or more goals of the workout session as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. This type of mental process can be practically performed in the human mind, and is in fact performed in the human mind, for instance by prompting a user to enter a swim distance and provide feedback on whether the distance satisfy a set of criteria and providing an alternative distance goal from the human trainer. The mere nominal recitation of at least one processor, display and input device performing these steps does not take the claim limitation outside of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process (Step 2A, Prong 1: yes).
Step 2A, Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
Per the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, if a claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of that exception, a claim is not "directed to" a judicial exception. Alternatively, a claim that does not integrate a recited judicial exception into a practical application is directed to the exception. Evaluating whether a claim integrates an abstract idea into a practical application is performed by a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea, and b) evaluating those additional elements individual and in combination to determine whether they integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, using one or more of the considerations laid out by the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit. Exemplary considerations indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have or has not been integrated into a practical application are set forth in the 2019 PEG
With respect to the instant claims, Claims 1, 19 and 20 recite the additional elements of: A computer system configured to communicate with a display generation component and one or more input devices, comprising: one or more processors; and memory … A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing one or more programs configured to be executed by one or more processors of a computer system that is in communication with a display generation component and one or more input devices. It is particularly noted that the use of processor "as a tool" to perform an abstract method and steps/device for displaying and inputting that only amount to extra solution activity are indicated in the 2019 PEG as examples that an additional element has not been integrated into a practical application. Even in combination, the recited additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits, such as an improvement to a computing system, on practicing the abstract idea (STEP 2A, Prong 2: NO).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Claims 1, 19 and 20 recite the additional elements of: A computer system configured to communicate with a display generation component and one or more input devices, comprising: one or more processors; and memory … A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing one or more programs configured to be executed by one or more processors of a computer system that is in communication with a display generation component and one or more input devices set forth above for Step 2A, Prong 2. Regarding these limitations: Applicant's specification describes these features in generic manner "… FIG. 1A is a block diagram illustrating portable multifunction device 100 with touch-sensitive display system 112 in accordance with some embodiments. Touch-sensitive display 112 is sometimes called a "touch screen" for convenience and is sometimes known as or called a "touch-sensitive display system." Device 100 includes memory 102 (which optionally includes one or more computer-readable storage mediums), memory controller 122, one or more processing units (CPUs) 120, peripherals interface 118, RF circuitry 108, audio circuitry 110, speaker 111, microphone 113, input/ output (I/O) subsystem 106, other input control devices 116, and external port 124. Device 100 optionally includes one or more optical sensors 164. Device 100 optionally includes one or more contact intensity sensors 165 for detecting intensity of contacts on device 100 (e.g., a touch-sensitive surface such as touch-sensitive display system 112 of device 100). Device 100 optionally includes one or more tactile output generators 167 for generating tactile outputs on device 100 (e.g., generating tactile outputs on a touch-sensitive surface such as touch-sensitive display system 112 of device 100 or touchpad 355 of device 300). These components optionally communicate over one or more communication buses or signal lines 103” in the Applicant’s specification, para. [45]). There is no indication in the Specification that Applicants have achieved an advancement or improvement in computer for generating a workout session, distance and workout goal. Dependent claims 2 - 18 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims through their dependencies and do not recite additional limitations sufficient to direct the claims to more than the claimed abstract idea, and are thus rejected for the same reasons.
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 – 10, 13 – 14, 16, 18 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffman et al. (US 2014/0371887 A1) in view of Mendels et al. (US 2018/0001140 A1)
Re claims 1, 19 and 20:
Hoffman teaches 1. A computer system configured to communicate with a display generation component and one or more input devices (Hoffman, figs. 10A – 19C), comprising:
one or more processors; and memory storing one or more programs configured to be executed by the one or more processors (Hoffman, fig. 1; fig. 7), the one or more programs including instructions for:
prior to initiating a workout session, prompting a user of the computer system to input a distance associated with the workout session (Hoffman, figs. 10A – 19C show input interfaces);
after prompting the user of the computer system to input the distance associated with the workout session, detecting, via the one or more input devices, one or more user inputs selecting the distance associated with the workout session (Hoffman, figs. 10A – 19C show input interfaces; fig. 15A – 15F show customizable distance); and
after receiving the one or more user inputs selecting the distance associated with the workout session (Hoffman, figs. 10A – 19C):
Hoffman teaches 19. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing one or more programs configured to be executed by one or more processors of a computer system that is in communication with a display generation component and one or more input devices (Hoffman, figs. 10A – 19C; fig. 1; fig. 7), the one or more programs including instructions for:
prior to initiating a workout session, prompting a user of the computer system to input a distance associated with the workout session (Hoffman, figs. 10A – 19C show input interfaces);
after prompting the user of the computer system to input the distance associated with the workout session, detecting, via the one or more input devices, one or more user inputs selecting the distance associated with the workout session (Hoffman, figs. 10A – 19C show input interfaces; fig. 15A – 15F show customizable distance); and
after receiving the one or more user inputs selecting the distance associated with the workout session (Hoffman, figs. 10A – 19C):
in accordance with a determination that the distance associated with the workout session satisfies a set of criteria, initiating the workout session; and
in accordance with a determination that the distance associated with the workout session does not satisfy the set of criteria, displaying, via the display generation component, a notification without initiating the workout session, wherein the notification includes:
a first selectable user interface object that, when selected via user input, initiates a process to update one or more goals of the workout session.
Hoffman teaches 20. A method (Hoffman, figs. 10A – 19C; fig. 1; fig. 7), comprising:
at a computer system that is in communication with a display generation component and one or more input devices (Hoffman, figs. 10A – 19C; fig. 1; fig. 7):
prior to initiating a workout session, prompting a user of the computer system to input a distance associated with the workout session (Hoffman, figs. 10A – 19C show input interfaces);
after prompting the user of the computer system to input the distance associated with the workout session, detecting, via the one or more input devices, one or more user inputs selecting the distance associated with the workout session (Hoffman, figs. 10A – 19C show input interfaces; fig. 15A – 15F show customizable distance); and
after receiving the one or more user inputs selecting the distance associated with the workout session (Hoffman, figs. 10A – 19C):
Hoffman does not explicitly disclose criteria to check the workout against a workout goal. Mendels teaches an exercise schedule optimizer system includes a user interface to receive data input from an exerciser and provide data output to the exerciser. Mendels teaches after receiving the one or more user inputs selecting the distance associated with the workout session: in accordance with a determination that the distance associated with the workout session satisfies a set of criteria, initiating the workout session; and in accordance with a determination that the distance associated with the workout session does not satisfy the set of criteria, displaying, via the display generation component, a notification without initiating the workout session (Mendels, [0024]; [0038]; [0043] – [0045]; [0043], “if the exerciser specifies a goal to run a specified number of miles a day, this specified goal may be analyzed with respect to the exerciser's physical condition and/or historical exercise pattern, and it may be determined whether it is a realistic goal in view of the exerciser's state and history. If it is determined that it is not consistent, and therefore that the goal is not realistic, then an intermediate goal may be established that is achievable and may help the exerciser make progress toward the exerciser's originally stated goal. As an example, if the exerciser is determined to be in poor physical condition, or has only run 1 mile a week at most up until this point, a goal stated by the exerciser to run 10 miles a day would be considered unrealistic. An intermediate goal may be set automatically, and additional intermediate goals may be established over time to gradually bring the exerciser to achieve the stated goal of 10 miles per day (via operation 408, discussed below)”; [0045], “the generated exercise goal may be presented to the exerciser as a proposal if it is determined that the exerciser's stated goal is not realistic based on the exerciser's historical exercise pattern”; Mendels teaches a system/method to evaluate the specific distance is a realistic goal or not; if it’s unrealistic an intermediate goal can be established),
wherein the notification includes: a first selectable user interface object that, when selected via user input, initiates a process to update one or more goals of the workout session (Mendels, [0024]; [0038]; [0043] – [0045]; [0043], “if the exerciser specifies a goal to run a specified number of miles a day … If it is determined that it is not consistent, and therefore that the goal is not realistic, then an intermediate goal may be established that is achievable and may help the exerciser make progress toward the exerciser's originally stated goal …”; [0045], “the generated exercise goal may be presented to the exerciser as a proposal if it is determined that the exerciser's stated goal is not realistic based on the exerciser's historical exercise pattern”). Therefore, in view of Mendels, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method/system/computer program described in Hoffman, by checking if the distance satisfied a condition as taught by Mendels, since if the distance is determined that it is not consistent, and therefore that the goal is not realistic, then an intermediate goal may be established that is achievable and may help the exerciser make progress toward the exerciser's originally stated goal (Mendels, [0043]).
Re claims 2 – 6:
2. The computer system of claim 1, wherein the one or more programs further include instructions for:
while displaying the first selectable user interface object, detecting, via the one or more input devices, user input corresponding to selection of the first selectable user interface object (Hoffman, figs. 10A – 19C show input interfaces; fig. 15A – 15F show customizable distance); and
in response to detecting the user input corresponding to selection of the first selectable user interface object, displaying, via the display generation component, a goal user interface, wherein the goal user interface (Hoffman, figs. 8 - 9; fig 20V; fig. 20Z; fig. 21A) includes:
an indication of an initial goal of the workout session; and an indication of an updated goal of the workout session, different from the initial goal of the workout session, wherein the updated goal of the workout session is based on the distance associated with the workout session (Hoffman, [0150], “the user chooses a goal setting option from a workout menu, the user may be asked to select a type of goal he would like to set in block 850. The various types of goals may include distance, time and calories ... The list of goals may include one or more predefined and/or automatically defined goals such as run a marathon, run for a specified time (e.g., 30 minutes) and/or burn a certain number of calories (e.g., 300 calories). The list of goals may also provide an option for the user to customize the goal”; [0149]).
3. The computer system of claim 2, wherein the goal user interface further includes a selectable start user interface object that, when selected via user input, initiates the workout session (Hoffman, figs. 8 - 9; fig 20V; fig. 20Z; fig. 21A).
4. The computer system of claim 2, wherein: the indication of the initial goal of the workout session includes a first appearance, and the indication of the updated goal of the workout session includes a second appearance that is different from the first appearance (Hoffman, figs. 8 - 9; fig 20V; fig. 20Z; fig. 21A).
5. The computer system of claim 2, wherein the initial goal is a distance goal of an interval of the workout session (Hoffman, fig. 20V – 20W; fig. 20Z).
6. The computer system of claim 2, wherein the initial goal is a distance goal of a total distance of the workout session (Hoffman, figs. 8 - 9; fig 20V; fig. 20Z; fig. 21A).
Re claims 7 – 9:
7. The computer system of claim 1, wherein the one or more programs further include instructions for:
while displaying the first selectable user interface object, detecting, via the one or more input devices, user input corresponding to selection of the first selectable user interface object; and in response to detecting the user input corresponding to selection of the first selectable user interface object, updating the one or more goals of the workout session (Hoffman, [0150], “the user chooses a goal setting option from a workout menu, the user may be asked to select a type of goal he would like to set in block 850. The various types of goals may include distance, time and calories ... The list of goals may include one or more predefined and/or automatically defined goals such as run a marathon, run for a specified time (e.g., 30 minutes) and/or burn a certain number of calories (e.g., 300 calories). The list of goals may also provide an option for the user to customize the goal”; [0149]).
8. The computer system of claim 1, wherein the notification further includes a second selectable user interface object that, when selected via user input, ceases display of the notification without updating the one or more goals of the workout session (Hoffman, [0150], “the user chooses a goal setting option from a workout menu, the user may be asked to select a type of goal he would like to set in block 850. The various types of goals may include distance, time and calories ... The list of goals may include one or more predefined and/or automatically defined goals such as run a marathon, run for a specified time (e.g., 30 minutes) and/or burn a certain number of calories (e.g., 300 calories). The list of goals may also provide an option for the user to customize the goal”; [0149]).
9. The computer system of claim 1, wherein initiating the workout session includes: displaying, via the display generation component, a countdown indicator that counts down for a period of time (Hoffman, fig. 37B, “Set a reminder to try again: In 3 days, In 1 week…”; [0233], “reminder interface”; a reminder is a countdown indicator).
Re claim 10:
10. The computer system of claim 1, wherein the one or more programs further include instructions for:
after initiating the workout session, displaying, via the display generation component, a workout user interface that includes information corresponding to physical activity performed by a user of the computer system (Hoffman, figs. 22A – 23B; figs. 26A – 28B).
Re claims 13 – 14:
13. The computer system of claim 10, wherein the one or more programs further include instructions for: while displaying the workout user interface: in accordance with a determination that a set of criteria is met: ceasing display of the workout user interface; and displaying, via the display generation component, an interval user interface (Hoffman, fig. 60F; [0007], “all map and route information may be collected into a summary of the user's runs or workouts including total distance, average distance, total time, average time, average pace, top X (e.g., 1, 2, 5, 10, 15, etc.) workout locations and the like”; [0163], “In FIG. 10E, interface 1045 displayed a workout summary upon completion or ending of the run. For example, summary interface 1045 includes a total distance run 1051, pace 1052, time spent running 1053 and calories burned 1055. Interface 1045 may further display option 1054 for displaying a route that the user run if the run was recorded using a GPS device”; [0172], “Indicator/message 1131 may also be displayed upon achieving other predefined goals such as performing 50 workouts, running 100 miles total (e.g., across all previous workouts), running 10 miles in 1 session, running 26.2 miles in one session, running for 30 minutes in a single session, running for 100 hours across all sessions and the like. Achievements”).
14. The computer system of claim 13, wherein the interval user interface includes: an indication of a remaining goal amount of a first goal of a current interval of the workout session (Hoffman, fig. 66D, “Goals, 55.8MI LEFT”; [0292], “A distance goal may indicate that there are 30 miles left to be run while a calories goal or objective may indicate that the user still needs to bum 2766 calories to complete the goal”; fig. 60E, “26.3 mi left”; [0155], “improvement or additional amount may correspond to a percentage of the unmodified goal/workout”); and an indication of a second goal of a next interval of the workout session (Hoffman, fig. 60F, “Next Run: 2.2 mi”; [0149], “The system may subsequently set the goal for the workout”; [0177], “the messages may identify a next activity level the user may reach and an amount of athletic activity required to reach that next level”).
Re claim 16:
16. The computer system of claim 1, wherein the one or more programs further include instructions for: after initiating the workout session and in accordance with a determination that a set of end criteria has been met: initiating a process to end the workout session; and displaying, via the display generation component, a workout summary user interface (Hoffman, fig. 60F; [0007], “all map and route information may be collected into a summary of the user's runs or workouts including total distance, average distance, total time, average time, average pace, top X (e.g., 1, 2, 5, 10, 15, etc.) workout locations and the like”; [0163], “In FIG. 10E, interface 1045 displayed a workout summary upon completion or ending of the run. For example, summary interface 1045 includes a total distance run 1051, pace 1052, time spent running 1053 and calories burned 1055. Interface 1045 may further display option 1054 for displaying a route that the user run if the run was recorded using a GPS device”; [0172], “Indicator/message 1131 may also be displayed upon achieving other predefined goals such as performing 50 workouts, running 100 miles total (e.g., across all previous workouts), running 10 miles in 1 session, running 26.2 miles in one session, running for 30 minutes in a single session, running for 100 hours across all sessions and the like. Achievements”).
Re claim 18:
18. The computer system of claim 1, wherein the workout session is a swimming workout session (Hoffman, [0283]).
Claims 11 – 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffman et al. (US 2014/0371887 A1) in view of Mendels et al. (US 2018/0001140 A1) as applied to claims 10 or 13 above, and further in view of Mitchell et al. (US 5136621 A).
Re claims 11 – 12, 15:
Hoffman does not explicitly disclose measuring temperature of the water.
Mitchell teaches an invention relates to sporting event lap counters/timers and, in particular, to sporting event lap counters/timers used by swimmers (Mitchell, Abstract). Mitchell teaches Mitchell teaches 11. The computer system of claim 10, wherein the workout user interface includes an indication of a temperature of water. 12. The computer system of claim 11, wherein the one or more programs further include instructions for: detecting, via the one or more input devices, the temperature of the water. 15. The computer system of claim 13, wherein: the workout user interface includes an indication of a temperature of water, and the interval user interface includes the indication of the temperature of water (Mitchell, col. 3, line 40 – col. 4, line 10; col. 6, lines 51 – 61, “The user can scan sessions containing lap split times, total elapsed times, and water temperatures. There is a fast and slow scan rate that the user can select”). Therefore, in view of Mitchell, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the computer system described in Hoffman, by providing measuring the water temperature during a swim session as taught by Mitchell, since it was known in the art that water temperature affects the performance of the swimmer just like ambient temperature affects the performance of a runner.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffman et al. (US 2014/0371887 A1) in view of Mendels et al. (US 2018/0001140 A1) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Mitchell et al. (US 5136621 A) and West (US 5624188 A).
Re claim 17:
Hoffman does not explicitly disclose measuring temperature of the water; nor measuring average water temperature. The combination of Mitchell and West teaches 17. The computer system of claim 16, wherein the workout summary user interface includes an indication of an average water temperature over a duration of the workout session (Mitchell, col. 3, line 40 – col. 4, line 10; col. 6, lines 51 – 61, “The user can scan sessions containing lap split times, total elapsed times, and water temperatures. There is a fast and slow scan rate that the user can select”; West, Abstract, “the average temperature”; col. 2, lines 13 – 23, “the present invention to provide a thermometer capable of measuring average temperature along a path traversing an open area. The open area being filled with a medium capable of supporting sound waves. An example of such an area is a room of a house. The medium in this case would be air. Another example is a swimming pool, with water being the medium”). Therefore, in view of Mitchell and West, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the computer system described in Hoffman, by providing measuring the water temperature during a swim session as taught by Mitchell, since it was known in the art that water temperature affects the performance of the swimmer just like ambient temperature affects the performance of a runner. A need exists for a temperature measurement apparatus that can provide a average reading of temperature across an open area (a swimming pool) and summarize the pool temperature during a lap (West, col. 2, lines 5 - 11).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACK YIP whose telephone number is (571)270-5048. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
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, XUAN THAI can be reached at (571) 272-7147. 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.
/JACK YIP/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights