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 .
General Remarks
This communication is considered fully responsive to Applicant’s application filed 05/30/2025.
Application filed: 05/30/2025.
Applicant’s PgPUB: 2026/0221258
Claims:
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1, 17 and 19 are independent.
Claim 1 is amended.
Claims 2-20 are new.
Preliminary Amendment:
Preliminary Amendment was filed 04/20/2026 to claims. Claim 1 was amended and claims 2-20 were added.
Continuity/Priority Data:
This Application is a Continuation of Non-Provisional Application No. 17/160,125 (Patent: 12,354,726) filed 01/27/2021.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No.12,354,726. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both present application and the patent provide for synchronizing a workout class with participants and accounting for participants who are “slower” than the group at large and how to keep the group “together” throughout a workout. The present application has a focus on the “slow” participant whereas the patent has a focus on the “strength trainer”.
Application: 19/223,377
Claim 1:
A) A system, comprising:
B) a communication interface; and
C) a processor coupled to the communication interface, configured to:
D) receive a plurality of ready signals from a plurality of designated strength training
devices;
E) transmit an initial synchronization signal to the plurality of designated strength
training devices such that the plurality of designated strength training devices begin a
workout phase in a synchronized manner and then proceed with the workout phase
asynchronously;
F) receive a plurality of status signals indicating completion of the workout phase
from at least some of the plurality of designated strength training devices but not from a
slow strength training device of the plurality of designated strength training devices;
G) transmit a resynchronization signal to the plurality of designated strength training
devices upon determining that a count of the plurality of status signals exceeds a threshold such that the plurality of designated strength training devices begin a subsequent workout phase in a synchronized manner and then proceed with the subsequent workout phase asynchronously:
H) receive a subsequent status signal from at least the slow strength training device
during the subsequent workout phase; and
I) transmit a subsequent resynchronization signal to the slow strength training device upon determining that a subsequent count of subsequent status signals from the subsequent workout phase exceeds the threshold such that the slow strength training device applies a resistance load against a slow strength training device user.
Patent: 12,354,726
Claim 1:
A) A system, comprising:
B) a communication interface configured to communicate to a strength trainer; and
C) a processor coupled to the communication interface, configured to:
D) receive a ready signal from each of a plurality of designated strength training devices, including the strength trainer;
E) transmit an initial synchronization signal to the plurality of designated strength training devices such that the plurality of designated strength training devices begin an initial workout phase in a synchronized manner and then proceed with the initial workout phase asynchronously;
F) receive a status signal indicating completion of the initial workout phase from at least some of the plurality of designated strength training devices but not from the strength trainer;
G) transmit a resynchronization signal to the plurality of designated strength training devices upon determining that a count of the plurality of status signals exceeds a threshold such that the completed plurality of designated strength training devices begin a subsequent workout phase in a synchronized manner and then proceed with the subsequent workout phase asynchronously;
H) receive a subsequent status signal from the strength trainer during the subsequent workout phase; and
I) transmit a subsequent resynchronization signal to the strength trainer upon determining that a subsequent count of subsequent status signals from the subsequent workout phase exceeds the threshold such that the strength trainer begins a future workout phase in a synchronized manner and then proceeds with the future workout phase asynchronously, at least in part by starting a resistance load against a user using an appliance controller of a strength trainer;
J) wherein the strength trainer comprises:
K) a strength trainer communication interface; the actuator; and
L) the appliance controller configured to determine the resistance load provided by the actuator against which the user exercises.
Reasons:
A) Same
B) Similar language
C) Same
D) Similar language.
‘726 includes “strength trainer”. ‘377 does not specifically include “strength trainer”
E) Similar language
‘726 specifies “initial workout phase. ‘377 only uses the phrase “workout phase”
F) Similar language
‘726 specifies that status signals are received but is NOT received from the strength trainer. ‘377 specifies that status signals are received but not received from the “slow” strength training device
G) Similar language
‘726 specifies “completed plurality of designated strength training devices”. ‘377 only specifies “plurality of designated strength training devices”
H) Similar language
‘726 specifies ”strength trainer”. ‘377 specifies “slow strength training device”
I) Similar language
‘726 provides some additional detail on how the resistance load is implemented Specifies “strength trainer”. ‘377 provides for more simplified language on specifies the “slow strength training device”
J) Only in ‘726
K) Only in ‘726
L) Only in ‘726
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 virtual workout class (i.e., organization of human activity) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) usage of ready signals, synchronization signals and resynchronization to allow a user to catch up with the rest of the class. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the tools and devices used within the claims are not a technological advancement or improvement, but simply a tool for communication that is used as a substitute for in-person communications (i.e., a participant talking to an instructor). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the manner in which the claims recite the invention is equivalent to automating an otherwise manual process. Below is the analysis for claim. Analysis for the remaining claims is similar.
Analysis for claim 1:
Step 1 - Valid Statutory Class:
Yes, system claim, which would be a machine claim.
Step 2A – Prong 1 - Judicial Exception:
Yes, the claim as a whole recites a system of organizing human activity. The claimed invention is a system that allows an instructor to know the progress of participants within a workout class in order to know when to begin the next session within the workout.
For example, the instructor tells the 10 participants to perform 15 pushups. Instructor waits to see when all or a majority of participants finish to then move on. Any participant lagging would be told to catch up on the next set.
This is a system for managing user activities in the environment of a workout class which is consistent with an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong 2 – Integrated into a Practical Application:
No, the present invention does not provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or other related technology. The claim limitations as stated in the claims can be performed by a person simply by talking over a phone (if remote) or talking directly (if in the same room or close enough to one another). The claimed invention is not integrated into a particular machine that is integral to the claim. As stated previous, the claimed limitations are covered by a user with a phone or a user in the same room as someone with whom they need to communicate.
A claim reciting a judicial exception is not directed to the judicial exception if it also recites additional elements demonstrating that the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. One way to demonstrate such integration is when the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field. The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner meaningfully limits the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, and thus transforms a claim into patent-eligible subject matter. Such claims are eligible at Step 2A because they are not “directed to” the recited judicial exception. (MPEP 2106.04 (d)(1)).
The present invention does not show an improvement to the functioning of a computer system or improves this particular technology or technical field of virtual coaching. The listed claim limitations discuss synchronization and resynchronization signals, but these signals are for the participants of the class and not the system itself. The signals and the functionality of the claim are used for organizing human activity.
Step 2B – Significantly More:
MPEP 2106.05 discusses Step 2B and whether the claims amount to significantly more. The recitation of elements with the claim does not amount to significantly more or something that is unconventional. As previously stated, the present invention does not show an improvement to the functioning of a computer system or improves this particular technology or technical field of virtual coaching. The listed claim limitations discuss synchronization and resynchronization signals, but these signals are for the participants of the class and not the system itself. The signals and the functionality of the claim are used for organizing human activity.
Section A of MPEP 2106.05 provides a non-exhaustive list of the courts have found to qualify as “significantly more”. Unfortunately, of the six (6) provided examples, none of them apply to the current claim set.
Improvements to the functioning of computer
Improvements to any other technology or technical field
Apply the judicial exception with a particular machine that is arranged in a way to optimize speed of the machine
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing
Adding a specific limitation other that what is well-understood, routine and conventional
Other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
PgPUB 2013/0296048 to Jeffery – Jeffery teaches a distributed gaming platform is provided wherein mobile devices (e.g., a smartphone) with motion sensors are used as input controllers of a game.
PgPUB 2021/0121764 to Marcus – Marcus teaches visual aid timer systems comprise a visual aid timer that may be displayed to users, and synchronized to an audible alert signal providing expirations of time intervals and/or indications of start and/or stop times in a plurality of intervals used in physical fitness training and/or testing.
PgPUB 2006/0061468 to Ruha– Ruha teaches operating two or more mobile terminals in an interactive session. The mobile terminals are provided with one or more sensors.
PgPUB 2010/0279822 to Ford – Ford teaches detecting the movements in an exerciser's repetitive movement pattern that, when pre-recorded audio footfall sound files are played, most closely support the illusion that the user is generating the sounds with their own "virtual" footfalls, thus creating an enhanced virtual exercise experience.
PgPUB 2013/0346860 to Buggy – Buggy teaches creating or receiving of a profile comprising a time-ordered sequence of blocks, each block having associated timing and audio attribute parameters.
PgPUB 2020/0014967 to Putnam – Putnam teaches a smart mirror can show live or recorded streaming video of an instructor performing a workout in a package that is attractive and unobtrusive enough to hang in a living room.
PgPUB 2016/0346611 to Rowley – Rowley teaches use of athletic data to generate an output, such as for example, running routes and/or other information useful to runners or other workout participants.
PgPUB 2021/0272675 to Foley – Foley teaches a method for displaying archived exercise classes comprising displaying information about archived exercise classes that can be accessed by a first user via a computer network on a display screen at a first location, wherein the first user can select among a plurality of archived classes.
Patent 12,151,140 to Wang – Wang teaches generating based on historical exercise information. User exercise information is classified into an exercise category using the classification model. Recommendations based on the exercise category is identified. A customized exercise recommendation is determined from the identified recommendations based on a comparison of the user exercise information and expected progress data. This customized recommendation is provided to a user device for consumption.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAYLOR A ELFERVIG whose telephone number is (571)270-5687. The examiner can normally be reached Monday (10:00 AM CST) - Friday (4:00 PM CST).
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, Oscar Louie can be reached on (571) 270-1684. 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.
/TAYLOR A ELFERVIG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445
