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 .
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s claim for priority as a continuation of application no. 17/729,827 (now U.S. Patent No. 12,350,573) filed 26 April 2022 and to provisional application no. 63/180,458 filed 27 April 2021.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 6, “anactive” should read --an active--
Line 6, “session:” should read --session;--
Line 8, “lgin iformain” should read --login information--
Line 9, “informatin” should read --information--
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Claim 1 recites at least one step or instruction for collecting intangible data/information and recording the data/information, which are grouped as mental processes under the 2019 PEG, and can be performed in the mind or by hand with the aid of pen and paper. Accordingly, claim 1 recites an abstract idea. Below, the limitations of claim 1 have been examined, whereby the underlined portions correspond to the abstract idea and the bolded portions are additional elements. Please note that the specific abstract idea has been recited in parenthesis.
Claim 1 recites a method of compiling workout information in a workout session, the method comprising:
at a workout server:
receiving, via a network, first login information from a first exercise device (involves observation of a person’s login information, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG);
receiving, via the network, first workout information from the first exercise device (involves observation of workout information, such as observing a person’s workout performance, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG);
recording the first workout information in an active workout session (involves observation and evaluation, such as by writing down on paper, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG);
receiving, via the network, second login information from a second exercise device, wherein the second login information includes at least one of NFC login information, barcode login information, biometric login information, and electromagnetic login information (involves simple observation of a person’s login information, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG);
receiving, via the network, second workout information from the second exercise device (involves observation of workout information, such as observing a person’s workout performance, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG); and
recording the second workout information in the active workout session (involves observation, judgement, or evaluation, such as by recording the workout information by pen and paper, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG).
Accordingly, Claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2
The above-identified abstract idea in each of independent Claim 1 is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the additional elements (identified above in independent Claim 1), either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. More specifically, the additional elements of: a workout server, a network, a first exercise device, and a second exercise device as recited in independent claim 1 are generically recited computer elements and generically recited exercise devices which do not improve the functioning of a computer or exercise device, or any other technology or technical field. Nor do these above-identified additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Furthermore, the above-identified additional elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claim 1 is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG.
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., mental process and certain method of organizing human activity) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer. In other words, the claim is merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by the claim over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in the claim. That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claim 1 is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
Accordingly, independent Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea under 2019 PEG.
Step 2B
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for at least the following reasons.
The claim requires the additional elements of: a workout server, a network, a first exercise device, and a second exercise device.
The above-identified additional elements are generically claimed computer components which enable the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic functions of automating mental tasks. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. , 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
In light of Applicant’s specification, the claimed terms of processor, hardware storage device, and server are reasonably construed as a generic computing device. Like SAP America vs Investpic, LLC (Federal Circuit 2018), it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require no improved computer resources, just already available computers, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process.
Furthermore, Applicant’s specification does not describe any special programming or algorithms required for the processor, hardware storage device, or server. This lack of disclosure is acceptable under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) since this hardware performs non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the computer arts. By omitting any specialized programming or algorithms, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the computer industry or arts. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional elements because it describes these additional elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (see Berkheimer memo from April 19, 2018, (III)(A)(1) on page 3). Adding hardware that performs “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible (TLI Communications).
The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in Claim 1 amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution.
For at least the above reasons, the method of Claim 1 is directed to applying an abstract idea as identified above on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself, or (ii) providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field. Claim 1 does not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements in independent Claim 1 does not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. That is, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity. When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. When viewed as whole, the above-identified additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, Claim 1 merely applies an abstract idea to a computer and does not (i) improve the performance of the computer itself (as in Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) provide a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR).
Therefore, Claim 1 does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, Claim 1 is not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brown et al. (US 6,601,016, hereinafter Brown).
Regarding claim 1, Brown teaches a method of compiling workout information in a workout session, the method comprising:
at a workout server:
receiving, via a network (network 62), first login information from a first exercise device (Col. 7, lines 25-27: “a user may input a UCID (universal communications identifier) or multiple UCIDs at input interface 43 of machine monitor 40.” Col. 7, lines 47-50: “a UCID account includes an alphanumeric identifier associated with a particular server address that may be owned by an individual.”);
receiving, via the network, first workout information from the fist exercise device (Col. 8, lines 29-34: “Remote server system 60 is preferably enabled to execute an exercise application 50 to compute current fitness activity based on the detected exercise signals received from machine monitor 40 in the form of a pulse, distance, rate, time, strain, acceleration, and any other sensed value that may be utilized to compute current fitness activity.” The remote server system receives current fitness activity from the signals from the machine monitor.);
recording the first workout information in an active workout session (Col. 9, lines 1-3: “In addition to storing cumulative real-time fitness activity for a user over a particular period of time, individual sessions of fitness activity may also be recorded.”):
receiving, via the network, second login information from a second exercise device, wherein the second login information includes at least one of NFC login information, barcode login information, biometric login information, and electromagnetic login information (Col. 7, lines 25-27: “a user may input a UCID (universal communications identifier) or multiple UCIDs at input interface 43 of machine monitor 40.” Col. 12, lines 22-25: “With reference still to FIG. 2, an individual can utilize their UCID account as a personal electronic exercise monitor that accesses, interprets, and manages fitness data across multiple diverse exercise machine platforms.” A user can input their login information over multiple exercise machines. Col. 6, lines 1-13: “Input interface 43, may include, but is not limited to including, a keyboard, a mouse, a stylus, a vocal recognition system, a tactile-detectable device, a biometric detection device, a disk drive, and other devices which allow user input to machine monitor 40. Preferably, input interface 43 provides an interface with machine monitor 40 through which a user may supplement data provided by machine monitor 40 and remote server system 60. In addition, input interface 43 preferably provides an interface with machine monitor 40 through which a user may customize the functions performed by machine monitor 40 and data stored therein.” It is noted that the second exercise device is described similarly to the first exercise device in Brown.);
receiving, via the network, second workout information from the second exercise device; and
recording the second workout information in the active workout session (Col. 8, lines 51-67: “Cumulative fitness activity over a selected time period is preferably computed by exercise application 50 from summing previously accumulated fitness activity for the selected time period with the current fitness activity. In summing the previously accumulated fitness activity and current fitness activity, remote server system 60 may adjust the cumulative total to more closely reflect the fitness gained as a result of exercising on multiple machines over a period of time. For example, if a user exercises for an hour across three different exercise machines, the amount of calories burned by the user actually increases with prolonged exercise over a particular amount of time determined for that user and therefore is adjusted in the cumulative fitness activity. Therefore, remote server system 60 is enabled to compute and store cumulative real-time fitness activity within fitness profile 52 over a selected time period or session from across multiple diverse exercise machines utilizing exercise application 50.” The server receives and records information across multiple machines for sessions of cumulative fitness activity.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Catrina Letterman whose telephone number is (303)297-4297. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday - Friday, 8am - 5pm MT.
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, LoAn Jimenez can be reached at (571) 272-4966. 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.
/C.A.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3784
/Megan Anderson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3784
