DETAILED ACTION
This non-final action is in response to the application filed 27 February 2025.
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 .
Priority
Claims 1-20 are pending, having a filing date of 27 February 2025, and claiming domestic benefit to Application 17/496,118, filed 7 October 2021, and U.S. Provisional application 63/088,590, as a continuation in part. It should be noted that the subject matter contained within paragraphs [0088] to [0153] are new to this application and thus the claims supported by these paragraphs will be considered as having a filing date of 27 February 2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted 27 May 2025, complies with 37 C.F.R. 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS has been considered by the examiner. The initialed copy of the 1449 form is enclosed herewith.
Drawings
The drawings, filed 27 February 2025, are accepted by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities.
Claim 1 recites “a display generating module configured to display.” While the system recited in claim 1 includes “a mobile display”, it is no clear from the recitation, whether “a display generating module” is different from “a mobile display” or the same.
Claim 1 further recites “a segment” associated with the removing and redrawing steps. It is unclear whether these are the same or different from the “segment” recited in the adding step.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“exercise plan creating module configured to ... “ <see specification at [0046] disclosing that the modules may be implemented as one or more of functional logic, hardware logic, electronic circuitry, software modules>; and
“a display generating module configured to display” <see specification at [0046]; [0059] disclosing that the display generating module 112 may be configured to generate a display 144 of the customized route to travel on the mobile display of the computing platform 102 such as the mobile device>.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The exercise plan creating module is being interpreted per [0046] as one or more of functional logic, hardware logic, electronic circuitry, software modules. The display generating module is being interpreted per [0046] and [0059] as one or more of functional logic, hardware logic, electronic circuitry, software modules controlling the display.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-9 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In January, 2019 (updated October 2019), the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
• STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
• STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
o STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
o STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
o STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claim 1 is directed toward non-statutory subject matter as shown below.
STEP 1: Does claim 1 fall within one of the statutory categories? Yes, because claim 1 is directed toward a system which falls within one of the statutory categories.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
1. Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
2. Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
3. Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
As per claim 1, the system is a mental process that can be performed in the mind and, therefore, an abstract idea. In particular, claim 1 recites the abstract ideas of:
“generate a customized route based on the user-determined criteria”;
“enable adding a segment to the customized route”;
“enable removing a segment of the customized route”; and
“enable redrawing a segment of the customized route” ... .
These recitations merely consist of generating a customized route based on the user-determine criteria, and enabling adding, removing or redrawing a segment to the customized route. This is equivalent to a person generating a customized route based on the user-determine criteria, and enabling adding, removing or redrawing a segment to the customized route. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same). As such, a person, generates a customized route based on the user-determine criteria, and enables adding, removing or redrawing a segment to the customized route. The mere nominal recitations that the system includes “a mobile device”, “a human interface”, “a memory”, “a processor”, “a mobile display”, and that the “exercise plan creating module” executes the generating, adding, removing and redrawing steps, does not take the limitation out of the mental process grouping.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
• an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
• an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
• an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
• an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
• an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
• an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
• an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
• an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claim 1 does not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into practical application. Claim 1 further recites the additional element of:
“receive the user-determined criteria”; and
“a display generating module configured to display the customized route.”
These additional elements further limit the abstract idea without integrating the abstract idea into practical application or significantly more. In particular, the “receiving the user-determined criteria“ and “display the customized route” steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering an electronic representation of the users route preference and displaying the resulting route) and amount to mere data gathering, a form of insignificant extra-solution activity added to the judicial exception per MPEP 2106.05(g), because the steps characterize pre solution activity, such as an individual establishing the criteria, and post activity of displaying the route.
Claim 1 still further includes the additional elements “an exercise plan creating module” and “a display generating module”. These elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they fail to integrate the exception into practical application. The mere inclusion of instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea is indicative that the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application. In the instant case, the system accomplishes receiving of the user-determined criteria by “an exercise plan creating module”, and displaying the customized route by “a display generating module”, i.e. via computers. Thus, it is clear that the abstract idea is merely implemented on a computer, which is indicative of the abstract idea having not been integrated in the practical application. The “exercise plan creating module,” and the “display plan generating module” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise metal judgements in a generic or general purpose computing environment. The exercise plan creating module, and the display generating module are recited at a high level of generality and merely automate the receiving and displaying steps.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, claim 1 does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
• adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
• simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Claim 1 does not recite any specific limitation or combination of limitations that are well-understood, routine, conventional (WURC) activity in the field. Receiving and displaying data are fundamental, i.e. WURC, activities performed by mobile devices, such system operating on the data such as the modules recited in claim 1. Further, applicant’s specification does not provide any indication that the Receiving and displaying activities of the system are performed using anything other than a conventional computer. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere performance of an action is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data (is a well understood, routine, and conventional function.
Thus, since claim 1 is: (a) directed toward an abstract idea; (b) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into practical application; and (c) does not recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claim 1 is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claims 2-9 and 12-20 further limit the abstract idea without integrating the abstract idea into practical application or significantly more. For example, claim 3 are further limitations that under their broadest reasonable interpretation are limitation that further limit the abstract idea without integrating the abstract idea into practical application. Still further, for example, claims 2, 4-7, 12-20 are further limitations that under their broadest reasonable interpretation are limitations that are abstract, using the similar analysis using for claim 1.
As such, claims 1-9 and 12-20 are rejected as being drawn to an abstract idea without more, and thus are ineligible.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication Number 2020/0108305 to Lee in view of U.S. Patent Publication Number 2015/0182845 to Kolman et al. (hereafter Kolman) and U.S. Patent Publication Number 2011/0032105 to Hoffman et al. (hereafter Hoffman).
As per claim 1, Lee discloses [a] system for creating a customized route to travel for a user (see at least Lee, Fig.16, showing route maps 1506, and Fig. 44 showing side bar 514 and saved plurality of routes ; [0162] disclosing that user opts to build a new route from scratch, the user may first be prompted to designate an approximate starting point of the route by, for example, entering a street address, ZIP code, or a particular point-of-interest. And further that once the user has entered all required parameters and any optional route attributes, the route module 1500 may build one or more routes conforming as closely as possible to the route parameters and route attributes entered; [0296] ), comprising:
a mobile device (see at least Lee, [0086] disclosing that the portable fitness monitoring device 102 may be a device such as, for example, a mobile phone, a personal digital assistant, a music file player (e.g. and MP3 player), a tablet computer, an intelligent article for wearing (e.g. a fitness monitoring garment, wrist band, or watch), a dongle (e.g. a small hardware device that is capable of physically coupling to a first electronic device and/or wirelessly coupling to additional electronic devices), or any other suitable dedicated or non-dedicated portable fitness monitoring device 102; [0095]; [0162]; [0163]) including:
a human interface for inputting user-determined criteria (see at least Lee, [0095] disclosing that FIG. 3 is a block diagram of exemplary components of a portable fitness monitoring device 102 ... . The portable fitness monitoring device 102 includes a processor 120, a memory 122, user input control 124, a positioning system receiver 126, a wireless wide area network (WWAN) transceiver 128, a wireless personal area network (WPAN) transceiver 130, a visual display 132, an audio unit 134, and a computer input/output 136);
a memory storing processor executable instructions (see at least Lee, [0095] ; [0096] disclosing that The processor 120 of the portable fitness processing device 102 is adapted to implement application programs that are stored in the memory 122; [0099]-[0101] );
a processor in communication with the human interface and the memory (see at least Lee, [0095]; [0096]; [0099]-[0101] );
a mobile display for displaying a customized route (see at least Lee, [0095]; [0099]; [100] disclosing that the visual display 132 may be a visual display output device 106 integrally coupled to the portable fitness monitoring device 102; [0101]);
a system in communication with the mobile device through a wide area network (see at least Lee, [0112] disclosing that a user stationed at the personal computer 114 located remotely from the server 112 may communicate with the server 112 via the network. And disclosing further that the user may also use the website provided by the server 112 to review and analyze performance information associated with the activity; [0126] disclosing that the various software modules of the fitness monitoring service of the present invention may support GUis through which an athlete 100 or other user can interact with the fitness monitoring service using the portable fitness monitoring device 102 and/or the personal computer 114 ; [0369] disclosing that the workout module 1700 may further be able to generate a workout routine where the intensity goal is, for example, heart rate, distance, pace, or speed based; [0370] disclosing that the portable fitness monitoring device 102 and the server 112 may communicate information via a wireless network, as described above. For example, the portable fitness monitoring device 102 is adapted to transmit personal and performance information and to receive the workout routine using a wireless transceiver), the system including:
an exercise plan creating module configured to: receive the user-determined criteria (see at least Lee, [0075] disclosing that the portable fitness monitoring device and a computer server system may interact with one another via a wireless wide area network; [0176] disclosing that a portable fitness monitoring device 102 in the form of a mobile phone ... that include at least a processor 120, a memory 122, user input controls 124, a positioning system receiver 126, a wireless wide area network (WWAN) transceiver 128, a visual display 132, and an audio unit 134);
generate a customized route based on the user-determined criteria (see at least Lee, [0156] disclosing that the custom workout wizard may allow a user to build a workout with a single zone, or a workout with a plurality of zone intervals. Fig. 15 shows the custom workout wizard may present a GUI page that allows the user to build a custom workout one interval at a time in a graphical manner; [0157] disclosing with reference to Fig. 15 that user has so far constructed an interval builder bar 404 that includes a series of 30 second red zone ( dark grey shading) and green zone (black shading) intervals. And that such a pattern would allow the athlete 100 to conduct 30 second red zone sprints) ... (1) ... ; ... (2) ... ; ... (3) ... ;
a display generating module configured to display the customized route (see at least Lee, Fig. 16 showing display and routes to travel (1506) , Fig. 44, showing Route details ; [0156]; [0162]; [0286]). But Lee does not explicitly teach the following limitations taught in Kolman:
(1) enable adding a segment to the customized route (see at least Kolman, [0014] disclosing that the newly added route segment is then highlighted to allow for editing of any adjustable parameter associated with the route segment. When a route segment is added, the length of the overall time duration under the entire route would not be changed even though one route segment is added to the route chart. Instead, the length of each remaining route segment is proportionately scaled to maintain the overall duration of the exercise; [0040] disclosing that if the time parameter 150 is not changed, the length of the overall time duration under the entire route is not changed regardless of the number of route segments added to or subtracted from the route chart 113; [0018]; [0019]; [0049]);
(2) enable removing a segment of the customized route (see at least Kolman, [0014] ; [0018]; [0019]; [0049] ); ... . But, neither Lee nr Kolman explicitly teach the following limitation taught in Hoffman:
(3) enable redrawing a segment of the customized route (see at least Hoffman, [0071] disclosing that multiple markers could be entered <interpreted as redrawing> to define segments of a route (e.g., portions of a route), and the challenges and/or other features as described above may be applied to these segments as well. FIGS. 15A and 15B illustrate examples of such marking. As shown in FIG. 15A, a GPS Segment Start Point is being marked, and in FIG. 15B, a GPS Segment End Point is being marked (e.g., by appropriate user input to the watch 100 during the run) );
Lee, Kolman and Hoffman are analogous art to claim 1 because they are in the same field of exercise planning. Lee relates to location-aware fitness monitoring methods, systems, and program products, and applications (see at least Lee, [0003]). Kolman relates to a method for building an exercise program of an exercise apparatus (see at least Kolman, [0003]). Hoffman relates to athletic performance monitoring systems including a portable/wearable component and having various global positioning system features and functionality and enhanced athletic performance features and functionality (see Hoffman, [0006]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as disclosed in Lee, to provide the benefit of enabling adding and removing a segment to the customized route, as disclosed in Kolman, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of simplifying the exercise segment modification (see Kolman, [0079]-[0084]).
If would further be obvious to have modified the system as disclose in Lee, as modified by Kolman, to further provide the benefit of enabling redrawing of a segment to the customized route, as disclosed in Hoffman, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of enhancing the functionality in recording and monitoring athletic performance data (see Hoffman, [0134]).
As per claim 3, the combination of Lee, Kolman and Hoffman discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Lee further discloses the following limitation:
enable route preview through one of a 2D map, a 3D map, an elevation map, and a satellite map (see at least Lee, Fig 31B showing map icon 1124; [0230] disclosing that upon actuating the map icon 1124 illustrated in FIG. 31A using the user input controls 124, the workout recording sub-module of the go module 1100 may present a GUI window such as that illustrated in FIG. 31B, which includes a visual indication of the present location of the athlete 100 on a map; [0284] disclosing that the route tools sub-module allows the user 100 to associate specific routes with a workout when the workout involved the traversal of a particular geographic pathway. And further that the route tools sub-module may employ a web-based mapping service application, such as, for example, the Google Maps application; [0304] disclosing that "Live tracking" refers to the ability of a remote user other than the athlete 100 to track the athlete's 100 location in substantially real time during the activity. And further that users with access to this data on the server 112 may be able to view the athlete's 100 location, for example, superimposed on a map).
As per claim 4, the combination of Lee, Kolman and Hoffman discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Lee further discloses the following limitation:
selectively enable integration of a warmup segment and/or a cooldown segment with the customized route (see at least Lee, [0157] disclosing that the interval builder bar 404 includes five minute blue zone intervals ( cross-hatched shading) at the start and finish. These blue zone intervals may serve as warm up and cool down periods, and the user may enable them by checking an appropriate checkbox; [0163] disclosing that the route difficulty rating may be assigned to the route based on one or more of route length, elevation changes over the route, and altitude of the route; [0323] disclosing that the library module 700 may include a videos section that provides short animations and/or videos teaching the athlete 100 proper stretching, warm-up, cool-down, and other exercising techniques).
As per claim 6, the combination of Lee, Kolman and Hoffman discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Lee further discloses the following limitation:
collect and store a performance metric for a completed portion of a route even when the route is not completed by the user (see at least Lee, [0084] disclosing that the portable fitness monitoring device 102 may be adapted to measure and/or calculate various performance parameters associated with the athlete's 100 physical activity. The term "performance parameters" may include both physical parameters and physiological parameters associated with the athlete's 100 physical activity. Physiological parameters measured and/or calculated may include, for example, heart rate, respiration rate, blood oxygen level, blood flow, hydration status, calories burned, muscle fatigue, and/or body temperature; [0088] disclosing that sensors 104 may be physically separate from the portable fitness monitoring device 102. These sensors 104 may not be integrally coupled to or included within the same housing as the portable fitness monitoring device 102. These sensors 104 may be in wired or wireless communication with the portable fitness monitoring device 102; [0135] disclosing that a graphical representation and a brief description of such a color-coded system may be provided on the introductory page and in personal settings. Prior planning and scheduling a workout, the user may be given the option to select which performance parameter to base their zones on ( e.g. heart rate, pace, speed, etc.). )
As per claim 7, the combination of Lee, Kolman and Hoffman discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Lee further discloses the following limitation:
provide adjustable audio (see at least Lee, [0174] disclosing that via the settings page, the user may be able to adjust audio feedback options provided by the portable fitness monitoring device 102 during a workout, as described in further detail below. In one embodiment, the user may select audio feedback with different types or styles of voices such as, for example, voices of different gendered speakers, voices with different accents, voices in different languages, voices from celebrities or fictional characters, and voices of different tones (e.g. supportive, calming, energizing, or stern). In another embodiment, the user may select specific performance parameter measurements to be recited via audio feedback during the workout ).
As per claim 19, the combination of Lee, Kolman and Hoffman discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Lee further discloses the following limitation:
create a customizable digital representation for tracking a user metric (see at least Lee, Fig 31B; [0284]; [0286] disclosing that the scrollbar 542 and/or the icon 570 may take the form of an active figure, such as a runner. In one embodiment, the user may be able to customize the images used for the scrollbar 542 and/or the icon 570 such as, for example, replacing the default icon with a personal avatar or other desired image; [0304])
As per clam 20, the combination of Lee, Kolman and Hoffman discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Lee further discloses the following limitation:
enable designation of a blocked area based on the user-determined criteria (see at least Lee, [0171] disclosing that a user may access the coaching settings feature to adjust their zone ranges if they feel that the current zone ranges are not ideal; [0294] disclosing that with respect to Fig. 16, the route module 1500 may have had access to an elevation database to obtain elevation corresponding to a particular route. This information may be used to supply elevation information for the route when conducting post-workout analysis ; [0308] disclosing that the last workout section 536 displays stats for the last workout completed by the athlete 100, and the next workout section 538 displays information about upcoming planned workouts. The coach talk section 540 may provide motivation, point out a particular area of focus , or otherwise provide guidance to the athlete 100 related to the ultimate goal of their particular plan or workout; [0323]).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, Kolman and Hoffman as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication Number 2021/0178226 to Abecassis et al. (hereafter Abecassis).
As per claim 2, the combination of Lee, Kolman and Hoffman discloses all of the limitations, as shown above. Lee further discloses the following limitation:
... , user-specified start and end points by locating a nearby existing route, or by manual drawing by the user (see at least Lee, Fig.16, showing route maps 1506, and Fig. 44 showing side bar 514 and saved plurality of routes ; [0162] disclosing that user opts to build a new route from scratch, the user may first be prompted to designate an approximate starting point of the route by, for example, entering a street address, ZIP code, or a particular point-of-interest. And further that once the user has entered all required parameters and any optional route attributes, the route module 1500 may build one or more routes conforming as closely as possible to the route parameters and route attributes entered; [0296]). But neither Lee, Kolman nor Hoffman explicitly teach the following limitation taught in Abecassis:
selectively generate the customized route through random generation (see at least Abecassis, [0049] disclosing that generating operation 250 generates a training plan for the user to achieve the stated goals within the life constraints. The user optimization engine may utilize a variety of techniques to generate the training plan for the user. In one instance, the generating operation 250 utilizes a randomized optimization approach. Specifically, the generating operation 250 generates a predetermined number of random solutions defining the training plan that satisfy the user's life constraints. The generated number of random solutions are scored based on their projected effect on the user's fatigue, fitness, and performance profiles and the highest scoring solution is selected as the user's training plan),
Lee, Kolman, Hoffman and Abecassis are analogous art to claim 2 because they are in the same field of exercise planning. Lee relates to location-aware fitness monitoring methods, systems, and program products, and applications (see at least Lee, [0003]). Kolman relates to a method for building an exercise program of an exercise apparatus (see at least Kolman, [0003]). Hoffman relates to athletic performance monitoring systems including a portable/wearable component and having various global positioning system features and functionality and enhanced athletic performance features and functionality (see Hoffman, [0006]). Abecassis relates to virtual athletic coach may offer dynamic training schedules that can make incremental adjustments based on an athlete's performance to the training schedule over time (see Abecassis, [0018])
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as disclosed in Lee, as modified by Kolman and Hoffman, to provide the benefit of selectively generating the customized route through random generation, as disclosed in Abecassis, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of providing dynamic training schedules that can make incremental adjustments based on an athlete's performance to the training schedule over time (see Abecassis, Abstract).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, Kolman and Hoffman as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication Number 2020/0164249 to Crankson et al. (hereafter Crankson).
As per claim 5, the combination of Lee, Kolman and Hoffman discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. But, neither Lee, Kolman nor Hoffman explicitly teaches the following limitation taught in Crankson:
automatically record split times at preset distances during continuous workouts (see at least Crankson, [0031] disclosing that interface 6660 may include a run curve 666I corresponding to time vs. distance, distance vs. pace, time vs. pace and/or various combinations thereof. In some arrangements, the run curve 666I may include one or more visual characteristics to represent a metric of the workout. For example, different colors may be used to represent the different paces exhibited by the user over the workout. In another example, different patterns or transparencies of the run curve may be used to represent different heart rates. Interface 6660 may further provide additional workout data granularity including split and interval times and paces).
Lee, Kolman, Hoffman and Crankson are analogous art to claim 5 because they are in the same field of exercise planning. Lee relates to location-aware fitness monitoring methods, systems, and program products, and applications (see at least Lee, [0003]). Kolman relates to a method for building an exercise program of an exercise apparatus (see at least Kolman, [0003]). Hoffman relates to athletic performance monitoring systems including a portable/wearable component and having various global positioning system features and functionality and enhanced athletic performance features and functionality (see Hoffman, [0006]). Crankson relates to athletic performance monitoring and tracking (see at least Crankson, Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as disclosed in Lee, as modified by Kolman and Hoffman, to provide the benefit of automatically record split times at preset distances during continuous workouts, as disclosed in Crankson, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of providing motivation for the individual to improve their fitness progress (see Crankson, [0003]).
Claims 8, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, Kolman and Hoffman as applied to claim7 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication Number 2021/0008412 to McWilliams et al. (hereafter McWilliams).
As per claim 8, the combination of Lee, Kolman and Hoffman discloses all of the limitations in claim 7, as shown above. But, neither Lee, Kolman nor Hoffman explicitly teach the following limitation taught in McWilliams:
adjust an audio tempo based on user-specified parameters (see at least McWilliams, [0017] disclosing that an example system for monitoring athletic performance as it compares to, for example, music played, includes one or more control circuits and sensors that are used to analyze performance of users as it compares to a tempo of the music played during an exercise session or class. Specifically, the sensors may be configured to detect one or more performance parameters of a group of users or exercisers. Such a comparison may be done directly and/or indirectly. In one embodiment, athletic performance at an exercise station is monitored and compared to the tempo of the music played, where the music tempo is identified by one or more of measuring the actual tempo of the music played, obtaining the tempo from a database, or otherwise associating the selection(s) played with an identified tempo of the music itself)
Lee, Kolman, Hoffman and McWilliams are analogous art to claim 8 because they are in the same field of exercise planning. Lee relates to location-aware fitness monitoring methods, systems, and program products, and applications (see at least Lee, [0003]). Kolman relates to a method for building an exercise program of an exercise apparatus (see at least Kolman, [0003]). Hoffman relates to athletic performance monitoring systems including a portable/wearable component and having various global positioning system features and functionality and enhanced athletic performance features and functionality (see Hoffman, [0006]). McWilliams relates to monitoring athletic or exercise performance (see McWilliams, [0002]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as disclosed in Lee, as modified by Kolman and Hoffman, to provide the benefit of enable adding, removing and redrawing of a segment to the customized route, as disclosed in McWilliams, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of using the music to positively impact the athletic performance by improving performance output and duration of a workout (see McWilliams, [0004]).
As per claim 10, the combination of Lee, Kolman and Hoffman discloses all of the limitations in claim 7, as shown above. But, neither Lee, Kolman nor Hoffman explicitly teach the following limitation taught in McWilliams:
match audio beat with a user-set goal pace and automatically adjust tempo when the user falls behind the user- set goal pace (see at least McWilliams, [0017]).
Lee, Kolman, Hoffman and McWilliams are analogous art to claim 10 because they are in the same field of exercise planning. Lee relates to location-aware fitness monitoring methods, systems, and program products, and applications (see at least Lee, [0003]). Kolman relates to a method for building an exercise program of an exercise apparatus (see at least Kolman, [0003]). Hoffman relates to athletic performance monitoring systems including a portable/wearable component and having various global positioning system features and functionality and enhanced athletic performance features and functionality (see Hoffman, [0006]). McWilliams relates to monitoring athletic or exercise performance (see McWilliams, [0002]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as disclosed in Lee, as modified by Kolman and Hoffman, to provide the benefit of matching an audio beat with a user-set goal pace and automatically adjust tempo when the user falls behind the user-set goal pace, as disclosed in McWilliams, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of using the music to positively impact the athletic performance by improving performance output and duration of a workout (see McWilliams, [0004]).
As per claim 11, the combination of Lee, Kolman and Hoffman discloses all of the limitations in claim 7, as shown above. But, neither Lee, Kolman nor Hoffman explicitly teach the following limitation taught in McWilliams:
maintain an audio pacing functionality during free runs without a predetermined route (see at least McWilliams, [0017]).
Lee, Kolman, Hoffman and McWilliams are analogous art to claim 11 because they are in the same field of exercise planning. Lee relates to location-aware fitness monitoring methods, systems, and program products, and applications (see at least Lee, [0003]). Kolman relates to a method for building an exercise program of an exercise apparatus (see at least Kolman, [0003]). Hoffman relates to athletic performance monitoring systems including a portable/wearable component and having various global positioning system features and functionality and enhanced athletic performance features and functionality (see Hoffman, [0006]). McWilliams relates to monitoring athletic or exercise performance (see McWilliams, [0002]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as disclosed in Lee, as modified by Kolman and Hoffman, to provide the benefit of maintaining an audio pacing functionality during free runs without a predetermined route, as disclosed in McWilliams, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of using the music to positively impact the athletic performance by improving performance output and duration of a workout (see McWilliams, [0004]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffman as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of World Intellectual Property Organization Publication Number WO 2019184207 A1 to Wu.
As per claim 9, the combination of Lee, Kolman and Hoffman discloses all of the limitations in claim 7, as shown above. But, neither Lee, Kolman nor Hoffman explicitly teach the following limitation taught in Wu:
integrate voice navigation as the user travels the route (see at least Wu, pg. 5, para . 2, disclosing that after the step of the correspondence between the room and the wristband, the method further includes: when acquiring the navigation request of the wristband, controlling the wristband to output voice navigation corresponding to the room number, wherein the navigation request includes a destination room number).
Lee, Kolman, Hoffman and Wu are analogous art to claim 9 because they are in the same field of exercise planning. Lee relates to location-aware fitness monitoring methods, systems, and program products, and applications (see at least Lee, [0003]). Kolman relates to a method for building an exercise program of an exercise apparatus (see at least Kolman, [0003]). Hoffman relates to athletic performance monitoring systems including a portable/wearable component and having various global positioning system features and functionality and enhanced athletic performance features and functionality (see Hoffman, [0006]). Wu relates to a device that providing navigation instruction (see Wu, pg. 5, para. 2).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as disclosed in Lee, as modified by Kolman and Hoffman, to provide the benefit of integrating voice navigation as the user travels the route, as disclosed in Wu, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of improving safety by providing voice navigation in low light situations.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, Kolman and Hoffman as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication Number 2016/0029943 to Mizuochi et al. (hereafter Mizouchi).
As per claim 12, the combination of Lee, Kolman and Hoffman discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. But, neither Lee, Kolman nor Hoffman explicitly teaches the following limitations taught in Mizouchi:
further comprising a team module configured to enable communication between a plurality of mobile devices of a plurality of users (see at least Mizouchi, Abstract, disclosing an information analysis device including an exercise analysis information acquisition unit that acquires a plurality of pieces of exercise analysis information that are results of analyzing exercise of a plurality of users, and an analysis information generation unit that generates analysis information from which exercise capabilities of the plurality of users can be compared, using the plurality of pieces of exercise analysis information ; [0223] disclosing that the information analysis device 4 acquires the exercise analysis information of a plurality of users from the database of the server 5 via the network, generates analysis information from which running capabilities of the plurality of users are comparable, and displays the analysis information on a display unit (not illustrated in FIG. 1). From the analysis information displayed on the display unit of the information analysis device 4, it is possible to relatively evaluate running capability of a specific user by comparing the running capability of the specific user with running capabilities with other users, or appropriately set the target value of each exercise index. When the user sets the target value of each exercise index, the information analysis device 4 transmits the setup information of the target value of each exercise index to the reporting device 3. The reporting device 3 receives the setup information of the target values of each exercise index from the information analysis device 4, and updates each target value used for comparison with the value of each exercise index described above),
wherein the team module implements organization registration and membership management for coordinating activities between the plurality of mobile devices of the plurality of users (see at least Mizouchi, [0418] disclosing an analysis process in the processing unit 420 will be specifically described using, as an example, an application with which a manager such as a supervisor or a coach can manage and analyze running of a plurality of players belonging to a team (an example of the “plurality of users” described above), and each player can analyze the running of the player. FIGS. 23 to 33 are diagrams illustrating examples of screens displayed on the display unit 470 by the processing unit 20 executing the analysis program 432 that implements the application. In this example, five tab screens of “Management”, “Record”, “Player capability”, “Personal details”, and “Exercise diary” can be selected. FIG. 23 is a diagram illustrating an example of the management tab screen. As illustrated in FIG. 23, the management tab screen 500 includes three links for player management respectively displayed as “Register player”, “Edit player”, and “Delete player”, three links for group management respectively displayed as “Register group”, “Edit group”, and “Delete group”, four links for running data management respectively displayed as “Register data”, “Edit data”, “Delete data”, and “Replace data”, a link for management password change displayed as “Change password”, and a button for ending the analysis displayed as “End”. The manager can perform a variety of manipulations on the management tab screen 500 after inputting a pre-registered password).
Lee, Kolman, Hoffman and Mizouchi are analogous art to claim 12 because they are in the same field of exercise planning. Lee relates to location-aware fitness monitoring methods, systems, and program products, and applications (see at least Lee, [0003]). Kolman relates to a method for building an exercise program of an exercise apparatus (see at least Kolman, [0003]). Hoffman relates to athletic performance monitoring systems including a portable/wearable component and having various global positioning system features and functionality and enhanced athletic performance features and functionality (see Hoffman, [0006]). Mizouchi relates to an information analysis device including an exercise analysis information acquisition unit that acquires a plurality of pieces of exercise analysis information that are results of analyzing exercise of a plurality of users (see Mizouchi, Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as disclosed in Lee, as modified by Kolman and Hoffman, to provide the benefit of having a team module configured to enable communication between a plurality of mobile devices of a plurality of users, and having the team module implement organization registration and membership management for coordinating activities between the plurality of mobile devices of the plurality of users, as disclosed in Mizouchi, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of providing data for the individual to improve their fitness progress by comparison with others (see at least Mizouchi, [0008]-[0009]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, Kolman, Hoffman and Mizouchi as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of F. Monteiro-Guerra, O. Rivera-Romero, L. Fernandez-Luque and B. Caulfield, "Personalization in Real-Time Physical Activity Coaching Using Mobile Applications: A Scoping Review," in IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics, vol. 24, no. 6, pp. 1738-1751, June 2020 (hereafter MG).
As per claim 13, the combination of Lee, Kolman, Hoffman and Mizouchi discloses all of the limitations of claim 12, as shown above. But, neither Lee, Kolman, Hoffman nor Mizouchi explicitly teach the following limitations taught in MG:
wherein the team module is configured to display a real-time status indicator for the plurality of users (see at least MG, Pg. 1743, col. 1, para. 5, disclosing approaches that involve adapting the information based on the user characteristics (e.g.,: age, weight, preferences, physical activity level). As described previously, this is mostly used in pair with GS strategies: the iBurnCalorie makes use of personal information provided during the registration process (age, gender, height, and weight during the registration process) and daily estimates of the users’ mean caloric food intake per day; StepbyStep takes into account the user’s baseline level of walking; u4fit system uses information from the user’s physical activity profile and his progress; the AAFS system, uses the users’ baseline of activity, daily progress and activity pattern throughout the day; Move2Play system adapts to the characteristics present in user and domain models (e.g., age, gender, physical activity fitness); the Sweetch app makes use of the user’s real-world habits and weight data; and INTELiRun incorporates age, height, weight, heart rate and injury history; Fig. 2 showing real-time coaching applications),
the real-time status indicator including an injury status, a meet registration, and/or an overtraining risk (see at least MG, Pg. 1743, col. 1, para. 5).
Lee, Kolman, Hoffman, Mizouchi and MG are analogous art to claim 12 because they are in the same field of exercise planning. Lee relates to location-aware fitness monitoring methods, systems, and program products, and applications (see at least Lee, [0003]). Kolman relates to a method for building an exercise program of an exercise apparatus (see at least Kolman, [0003]). Hoffman relates to athletic performance monitoring systems including a portable/wearable component and having various global positioning system features and functionality and enhanced athletic performance features and functionality (see Hoffman, [0006]). Mizouchi relates to an information analysis device including an exercise analysis information acquisition unit that acquires a plurality of pieces of exercise analysis information that are results of analyzing exercise of a plurality of users (see Mizouchi, Abstract). MG relates to a review of real-time physical activity coaching applications that make use of personalization mechanisms (see MG, Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as disclosed in Lee, as modified by Kolman, Hoffman and Mizouchi, to provide the benefit of displaying a real-time status indicator for the plurality of users and having the real-time status indicator including an injury status, a meet registration, and/or an overtraining risk, as disclosed in MG, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of having usable and engaging real-time support to increase the effectiveness of coaching (see MG, pg. 1739, col. 1, para. 2).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, Kolman, Hoffman and Mizouchi as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication Number 2019/0255386 to Trotter et al. (hereafter Trotter).
As per claim 14, the combination of Lee, Kolman, Hoffman and Mizouchi discloses all of the limitations of claim 12, as shown above. But, neither Lee, Kolman, Hoffman nor Mizouchi explicitly teach the following limitation taught in Trotter:
enable split calculations for each user of the plurality of users based on collected performance data (see at least Trotter, [0066] disclosing the one or more group performance metrics comprises one or more of: overall leader; leader within each of the exercise groups; leading group of the exercise groups; distance; speed; stroke rate; revolutions per minute; elevation gain; vertical oscillation; split time; 1-mile split time; total time; weight; watts; cadence; heart rate; and calories burned).
Lee, Kolman, Hoffman, Mizouchi and Trotter are analogous art to claim 14 because they are in the same field of exercise planning. Lee relates to location-aware fitness monitoring methods, systems, and program products, and applications (see at least Lee, [0003]). Kolman relates to a method for building an exercise program of an exercise apparatus (see at least Kolman, [0003]). Hoffman relates to athletic performance monitoring systems including a portable/wearable component and having various global positioning system features and functionality and enhanced athletic performance features and functionality (see Hoffman, [0006]). Mizouchi relates to an information analysis device including an exercise analysis information acquisition unit that acquires a plurality of pieces of exercise analysis information that are results of analyzing exercise of a plurality of users (see Mizouchi, Abstract). Trotter relates to a system for providing individual and group performance feedback using environmental stimulations responsive to biometric and performance data (see Trotter, [0002]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as disclosed in Lee, as modified by Kolman, Hoffman and Mizouchi, to provide the benefit of enabling split calculations for each user of the plurality of users based on collected performance data, as disclosed in Trotter, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of providing feedback and performance statistics that enhance the user participation and exercise goals (see Trotter, [0002]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, Kolman, Hoffman and Mizouchi as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication Number 2016/0035229 to Uchida et al. (hereafter Uchida).
As per claim 15, the combination of Lee, Kolman, Hoffman and Mizouchi discloses all of the limitations of claim 12, as shown above. But, neither Lee, Kolman, Hoffman nor Mizouchi explicitly teach the following limitation taught in Uchida:
generate a race simulation using historical performance data and a course-specific element (see at least Uchida, [0596] disclosing that the running analysis program 306 is a program for performing whole analysis, detail analysis, or comparison analysis with other people in terms of the running user, that is, a program for managing personal running history, but, may be a program for performing whole analysis or detail analysis of running of a plurality of members, for example, in terms of a manager of a team, that is, a program for performing group management of running history of a plurality of members; [0597] disclosing that FIG. 59 illustrates an example of a whole analysis screen in a program for performing group management of running history of a plurality of members. In the example illustrated in FIG. 59, a whole analysis screen 470 (first page) includes a user image 471 and a user name 472 which are registered in advance by a user (manager), a plurality of summary images 473 which respectively display running analysis results of members on the date selected by the user, an item name 474 of an item selected by the user, a time-series graph 475 in which a selected item for a member selected by the user is displayed in a time series, and a detail analysis button 476).
Lee, Kolman, Hoffman, Mizouchi and Uchida are analogous art to claim 15 because they are in the same field of exercise planning. Lee relates to location-aware fitness monitoring methods, systems, and program products, and applications (see at least Lee, [0003]). Kolman relates to a method for building an exercise program of an exercise apparatus (see at least Kolman, [0003]). Hoffman relates to athletic performance monitoring systems including a portable/wearable component and having various global positioning system features and functionality and enhanced athletic performance features and functionality (see Hoffman, [0006]). Mizouchi relates to an information analysis device including an exercise analysis information acquisition unit that acquires a plurality of pieces of exercise analysis information that are results of analyzing exercise of a plurality of users (see Mizouchi, Abstract). Uchida relates to a physical activity assisting program (see Uchida, [0002]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as disclosed in Lee, as modified by Kolman, Hoffman and Mizouchi, to provide the benefit of generating a race simulation using historical performance data and a course-specific element, as disclosed in Uchida, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of simplify the information displayed to improve usability (see Uchida, [0006], [0007]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, Kolman, Hoffman and Mizouchi as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Japanese Patent Publication Number JP 2016005593 A to Danny.
As per claim 16, the combination of Lee, Kolman, Hoffman and Mizouchi discloses all of the limitations of claim 12, as shown above. But, neither Lee, Kolman, Hoffman nor Mizouchi explicitly teach the following limitation taught in Danny:
track improvement across multiple performance metrics and enable comparison between each user of the plurality of users (see at least Danny, pg. 14 <intention 1049>, disclosing that the method of the present invention 1048 describes a process for determining the exercise capacity metric of the first team, based on the electronically recorded data of sporting events; pg. 15 <invention 1058>, disclosing generate one or more recommendations to improve athletic performance metrics, apparatus of the present invention 1055 described).
Lee, Kolman, Hoffman, Mizouchi and Danny are analogous art to claim 16 because they are in the same field of exercise planning. Lee relates to location-aware fitness monitoring methods, systems, and program products, and applications (see at least Lee, [0003]). Kolman relates to a method for building an exercise program of an exercise apparatus (see at least Kolman, [0003]). Hoffman relates to athletic performance monitoring systems including a portable/wearable component and having various global positioning system features and functionality and enhanced athletic performance features and functionality (see Hoffman, [0006]). Mizouchi relates to an information analysis device including an exercise analysis information acquisition unit that acquires a plurality of pieces of exercise analysis information that are results of analyzing exercise of a plurality of users (see Mizouchi, Abstract). Danny relates to a data recording system and data or display engine utilizing recorded from sporting events and displays the data in a unique manner for use in athletic training (see Dann, Pg. 2, Description, para. 2).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as disclosed in Lee, as modified by Kolman, Hoffman and Mizouchi, to provide the benefit of tracking improvement across multiple performance metrics and enable comparison between each user of the plurality of users, as disclosed in Danny, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of improving the level of skill and overall health (see Danny, pg. 10, para. 5).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, Kolman, Hoffman and Mizouchi as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Chinese Patent Publication Number CN 205729333 to Lin et al. (hereafter Lin).
As per claim 17, the combination of Lee, Kolman, Hoffman and Mizouchi discloses all of the limitations of claim 12, as shown above. But, neither Lee, Kolman, Hoffman nor Mizouchi explicitly teach the following limitation taught in Lin:
enable creation of a training template for grouping each user of the plurality of users based on similar abilities (see at least Lin, Abstract, disclosing a sports management system, comprising: a sensing unit configured to detect the motion intensity of the user, at least one motion, and combinations thereof of the group consisting of, a receiving unit is configured to receive the health target of the user; and a control unit configured to generate training plan in the specific period according to the health target, and managing the exercise of the user, at least one of the exercise intensity and the group composed of the combination thereof in order to achieve the training plan; pg. 3, “contents of the utility model, para.2, disclosing a movement management system, comprising: a sensing unit configured to detect the motion intensity of the user, at least one motion, and combinations thereof of the group consisting of a receiving unit. configured to receive health target of the user, and a control unit coupled to the sensing unit and the receiving unit is configured to generate the user on the training plan within a particular period according to the health target, and managing the exercise quantity of the user. at least one of the exercise intensity and the group composed of the combination thereof in order to achieve the training plan).
Lee, Kolman, Hoffman, Mizouchi and Lin are analogous art to claim 16 because they are in the same field of exercise planning. Lee relates to location-aware fitness monitoring methods, systems, and program products, and applications (see at least Lee, [0003]). Kolman relates to a method for building an exercise program of an exercise apparatus (see at least Kolman, [0003]). Hoffman relates to athletic performance monitoring systems including a portable/wearable component and having various global positioning system features and functionality and enhanced athletic performance features and functionality (see Hoffman, [0006]). Mizouchi relates to an information analysis device including an exercise analysis information acquisition unit that acquires a plurality of pieces of exercise analysis information that are results of analyzing exercise of a plurality of users (see Mizouchi, Abstract). Lin relates to a management system and method for motion target in a health plan (see Lin, pg. 1, Description, para. 1).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as disclosed in Lee, as modified by Kolman, Hoffman and Mizouchi, to provide the benefit of enabling creation of a training template for grouping each user of the plurality of users based on similar abilities, as disclosed in Lin, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of helping the user achieve the healthy target to more efficient and safe way (See Lin, pg. 3, “contents of the utility model”, para. 1).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, Kolman, Hoffman and Mizouchi as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication Number 2020/0114207 to Weldemariam et al. (hereafter W).
As per claim 18, the combination of Lee, Kolman, Hoffman and Mizouchi discloses all of the limitations of claim 12, as shown above. But, neither Lee, Kolman, Hoffman nor Mizouchi explicitly teach the following limitation taught in W:
enable organization- wide communication and announcements across the plurality of mobile devices (see at least W, [0034] disclosing that the invention may also identify a set of monitored activities. A set of preferences and goals for the exercise sequence can also be identified, e.g., by a user chatting. A set of accumulated information regarding any user modifications to previous exercise sequences may be optionally identified. A set of scheduled events can even be identified. Access to a user's calendar may help enable the invention. Through its integration with one or more calendaring applications, the system can help <interpreted as announcements> coordinate group exercise sessions, and provide verbal alerts and notifications within these systems).
Lee, Kolman, Hoffman, Mizouchi and W are analogous art to claim 15 because they are in the same field of exercise planning. Lee relates to location-aware fitness monitoring methods, systems, and program products, and applications (see at least Lee, [0003]). Kolman relates to a method for building an exercise program of an exercise apparatus (see at least Kolman, [0003]). Hoffman relates to athletic performance monitoring systems including a portable/wearable component and having various global positioning system features and functionality and enhanced athletic performance features and functionality (see Hoffman, [0006]). Mizouchi relates to an information analysis device including an exercise analysis information acquisition unit that acquires a plurality of pieces of exercise analysis information that are results of analyzing exercise of a plurality of users (see Mizouchi, Abstract). W relates to a system, method, and computer program product for dynamically configuring different physical activities and levels based on the user profile information and/or current user state (see W, [0001]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as disclosed in Lee, as modified by Kolman, Hoffman and Mizouchi, to provide the benefit of enabling organization- wide communication and announcements across the plurality of mobile devices, as disclosed in W, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the continuous motivation for a user (see W, [0004]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
U.S. Patent Publication Number 2024/0102819 to Sample at [0014] disclosing that the newly added route segment is then highlighted to allow for editing of any adjustable parameter associated with the route segment. When a route segment is added, the length of the overall time duration under the entire route would not be changed even though one route segment is added to the route chart. Instead, the length of each remaining route segment is proportionately scaled to maintain the overall duration of the exercise; [0040] disclosing that if the time parameter 150 is not changed, the length of the overall time duration under the entire route is not changed regardless of the number of route segments added to or subtracted from the route chart 113; [0018]; [0019]; [0049].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK M. BRADY III whose telephone number is (571)272-7458. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:00 am - 4;30 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, Erin Bishop can be reached at 571-270-3713. 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.
PATRICK M. BRADY III
Examiner
Art Unit 3665
/PATRICK M BRADY/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/Erin D Bishop/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights