DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This is the first office action on the merits in response to the application and preliminary amendments filed on 4 November 2025.
Claims 1-15 were amended.
Claim(s) 1-15 are currently pending and have been examined.
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
This application is a 371 application of PCT/EP2024/061516 filed on 26 April 2024 which claims priority to EP23172837 filed on 11 May 2023. Applicant’s claim for the benefit of these prior filed applications is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4 November 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) and 112(a)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims not listed below are rejected for dependency.
Claim limitation “means for determining a new and/or updated exercise parameter of an ongoing and/or an upcoming patient exercise, based at least in part on the dynamical patient data and the exercise data” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
The identified functionality is considered a special-purpose computer-implemented means-plus function limitation. Per MPEP 2181(II)(B), “In cases involving a special purpose computer-implemented means-plus-function limitation, the Federal Circuit has consistently required that the structure be more than simply a general purpose computer or microprocessor and that the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed function.” The disclosure provides a general purpose computer at Page 2, Lines 16-17: “The apparatus may be a mobile device, a (remote) server, a cloud-based server, a wearable device, etc.” and clearly links this disclosed apparatus to the means-plus-function limitation at issue with Page 2, Lines 7-9: “The apparatus further comprises means for determining a new and/or updated exercise parameter of an ongoing and/or an upcoming patient exercise, based at least in part on the dynamical patient data.” However, the disclosure does not provide an algorithm for achieving the identified functionality. As such, given MPEP 2181(II)(B), the disclosure does not provide the requisite structure to support the means plus function limitation. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
For the purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted with “server configured to” to perform the functionalities of the recited means.
Additionally, per MPEP 2181(II)(A), “When a claim containing a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation is found to be indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for failure to disclose sufficient corresponding structure (e.g., the computer and the algorithm) in the specification that performs the entire claimed function, it will also lack written description under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).” As such claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
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 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The instant claim recites “a computer program.” MPEP 2106.03 expressly states that “a computer program per se (often referred to as ‘software per se’) when claimed as a product without any structural recitations” is not directed to any of the statutory categories. The instant claim does not include any structural recitations for the computer program. As such, the claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites
.
The preceding recitation of the claim has had strikethroughs applied to the additional elements beyond the abstract idea to more clearly demonstrate the limitations setting forth the abstract idea. The remaining limitations describe a concept of providing exercise guidance by acquiring patient and exercise data and adjusting exercising parameters for a patient. This concept describes a mental process that a personal trainer or physical therapist should follow to provide exercise guidance to a patient similar to the “mental process that a neurologist should follow when testing a patient for nervous system malfunctions” given in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) as an example of managing personal behavior in the managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people sub-grouping of methods of organizing human activity. As such, these limitation set forth a method of organizing human activity. Therefore the claims are determined to recite an abstract idea. Alternatively, this concept is analogous to the examples of “observation”, “evaluation”, and “judgement” given in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Further, this concept as claimed does not require a scale of data beyond the mental faculties of a human being and the operations of the abstract idea can be practically performed in the human mind. As such, these limitations are determined to recite a mental process. Therefore the claims are determined to recite an abstract idea.
MPEP 2106, reflecting the 2019 PEG, directs examiners at Step 2A Prong Two to consider whether the additional elements of the claims integrate a recited abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 1 recites an apparatus comprising means. As noted above, these limitations are interpreted as a server implementing the functionalities of the means. This additional element is considered to be a generic computing device used to implement the abstract idea. Per MPEP 2106.05(f), implementing an abstract idea on a generic computing device does not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer. As such, this additional elements does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
There are no further additional elements. As such, the additional elements, individually and as a combination, fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore the claims are determined to be directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B of the Mayo/Alice analysis, examiners are to consider whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As previously noted, the claims recite an additional element which may be interpreted as a generic computing device used to implement the abstract idea. However, per MPEP 2106.05(f), implementing an abstract idea on a generic computing device does not add significantly more in Step 2B, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer. As such, this additional element does not amount to significantly more.
There are no further additional elements. Therefore, when considered individually and as a combination, the additional elements of independent claim 1 does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus independent claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-14 further narrow the abstract idea set forth by the claims, but the claims continue to recite an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9, and 11 recite no further additional elements. The previously identified additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for the same reasons given above. Because the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, dependent claims 2-7, 9, and 11 are also directed to an abstract idea. At Step 2B, the previously identified additional element does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As such, dependent claims 2-7, 9, and 11 are not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 8 recites the additional element of a user device comprising a user interface and sending data to a user device. The additional element of a user device comprising a user interface only generally links the abstract idea to a technological environment of computing devices. The additional element of sending data to a user device only generally links the abstract idea to a technological environment of networked computing devices. As such, these additional elements do not individually integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. When considered as a combination with each other and the previously identified additional element, the additional elements do not reflect any improvement to technology, do not require any particular device, do not effect a transformation of an article, and do not meaningfully limit the implementation of the abstract idea. Instead, the combination of the additional elements only generally links the abstract idea to a technological environment of networked computing devices. Because the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, dependent claim 8 is also directed to an abstract idea. At Step 2B, examiner notes that Stead (US 2002/0120633 A1) demonstrates (a display of data in a conventional scrolling user interface. [0012]) that user devices with user interfaces were conventional long before the priority date of the claimed invention. Additionally, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) states that the courts have recognized transmitting data over a network to be a conventional computer functionality. As such, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. When considered as a combination with each other and the previously identified additional element, the combination of additional elements only generally link the abstract idea to a technological environment of networked computing devices. As such, the combination of additional elements does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As such, dependent claim 8 is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 10 recites the additional element of providing data to a remote device. The additional element of sending data to a remote device only generally links the abstract idea to a technological environment of networked computing devices. When considered as a combination with the previously identified additional element, the additional elements do not reflect any improvement to technology, do not require any particular device, do not effect a transformation of an article, and do not meaningfully limit the implementation of the abstract idea. Instead, the combination of the additional elements only generally links the abstract idea to a technological environment of networked computing devices. Because the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, dependent claim 10 is also directed to an abstract idea. At Step 2B, examiner notes that MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) states that the courts have recognized transmitting data over a network to be a conventional computer functionality. As such, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. When considered as a combination with the previously identified additional element, the combination of additional elements only generally links the abstract idea to a technological environment of networked computing devices. As such, the combination of additional elements does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As such, dependent claim 10 is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 12 recites the additional element of an artificial intelligence-based assistant. This additional element amounts to instructions to implement the abstract idea with a generic computing device. As noted above, such additional elements do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. When considered in combination with the prior identified additional element, the additional elements do not reflect any improvement to technology, do not require any particular device, do not effect a transformation of an article, and do not meaningfully limit the implementation of the abstract idea. Instead, the combination of the additional elements only generally links the abstract idea to a technological environment of computing devices. Because the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, dependent claim 12 is also directed to an abstract idea. At Step 2B, examiner notes that Han et al. (US 2021/0272585 A1) demonstrates (A server or device including a conventional interactive artificial assistant using AI technology. See at least [0050]) that such assistants were conventional before the priority date of the claimed invention. As such, the additional element does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. When considered as a combination with the previously identified additional element, the combination of additional elements only generally links the abstract idea to a technological environment of computing devices. As such, the combination of additional elements does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As such, dependent claim 12 is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 13 recites the additional element of a sensor. This additional element does not impose a meaningful limit on the abstract idea and instead only amounts to necessary data gathering. As such, this additional element is considered insignificant extra-solution activity and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. When considered in combination with the prior identified additional element, the additional elements do not reflect any improvement to technology, do not require any particular device, do not effect a transformation of an article, and do not meaningfully limit the implementation of the abstract idea. Instead, the combination of the additional elements only generally links the abstract idea and insignificant extra-solution activity to a technological environment of computing devices. Because the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, dependent claim 13 is also directed to an abstract idea. At Step 2B, examiner notes that Amin (US 2018/0260850 A1) demonstrates (any other conventional sensor. [0037]) that such sensors were conventional before the priority date of the claimed invention. This supports the determination that this additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity, and thus this additional element does not amount to significantly more. When considered as a combination with the previously identified additional element, the combination of additional elements only generally links the abstract idea and insignificant extra-solution activity to a technological environment of computing devices. As such, the combination of additional elements does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As such, dependent claim 13 is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 14 recites the additional element of a user device which receives data and provides data via a user interface. The additional element of a user device which provides data via a user interface only generally links the abstract idea to a technological environment of computing devices. The additional element of a user device which receives data only generally links the abstract idea to a technological environment of networked computing devices. As such, these additional elements do not individually integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. When considered as a combination with each other and the previously identified additional elements, the additional elements do not reflect any improvement to technology, do not require any particular device, do not effect a transformation of an article, and do not meaningfully limit the implementation of the abstract idea. Instead, the combination of the additional elements only generally links the abstract idea and insignificant extra-solution activity to a technological environment of networked computing devices. Because the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, dependent claim 14 is also directed to an abstract idea. At Step 2B, examiner notes that Stead (US 2002/0120633 A1) demonstrates (a display of data in a conventional scrolling user interface. [0012]) that user devices which present information via user interfaces were conventional long before the priority date of the claimed invention. Additionally, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) states that the courts have recognized receiving data from a network to be a conventional computer functionality. As such, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. When considered as a combination with each other and the previously identified additional elements, the combination of additional elements only generally link the abstract idea and insignificant extra-solution activity to a technological environment of networked computing devices. As such, the combination of additional elements does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As such, dependent claim 14 is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-11 and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hjelt et al. (US 2005/0171410 A1).
Regarding claim 1 and 15: Hjelt discloses an apparatus for providing exercise assistance, comprising:
means for receiving dynamical patient data comprising at least one physiological parameter (the activity detection application 30 can request, and thereafter receive, personal information from the user, as shown in block 36. The personal information can comprise any of a number of different pieces of information such as, for example, date of birth, gender, height and/or weight, as well as a step length for the user when walking and/or running. See at least [0037]. Also: the physiological information can comprise any one or more pieces of personal information of the user (e.g., date of birth, gender, height, weight, step length for the user when walking and/or running, etc.), and/or a selection of one or more activities performed by the user (e.g., automatic detection, walking, running, dancing, gardening (outdoor housework), performing housework (indoor housework), or participating in aerobics, badminton, basketball, football, soccer, golf, weight training, hiking, jumping rope, squash, table tennis, tennis, Nordic training, squash, racquet ball, etc.). Additionally, or alternatively, the physiological information can comprise, for each selected activity, a time stamp reflecting when the user started performing the activity, the heart rate of the user, the intensity value associated with the user, the duration of the activity, the number of detected steps, the speed at which the user performs the activity, the distance over which the user performs the activity, and/or the energy expended by the user in performing the activity. See at least [0110]).
means for receiving exercise data comprising a current exercise parameter (the activity detection application is capable of interfacing with the sensor(s) 34 of the terminal to receive measurement(s) of the ambient and/or physiological condition(s) of the user, such as to receive heart rate measurements, and/or acceleration measurements indicative of movement over a distance for one or more periods of time. In this regard, the movement may be representative of the user taking one or more steps while performing one or more activities over those period(s) of time. See at least [0035]); and
means for determining a new and/or updated exercise parameter of an ongoing and/or an upcoming patient exercise, based at least in part on the dynamical patient data and the exercise data (after performing one or more operations based upon the piece(s) of physiological information, one or more destinations may select or otherwise determine content to return or otherwise transfer to the terminal 10 based upon the operation(s) performed by the destination(s), as shown in block 136. For example, a fitness trainer application may have a new exercise program, and/or modifications or adjustments to an existing exercise program (including one or more activities of an existing program), to transfer to the terminal. Also, for example, the fitness trainer application may have new or adjusted goals for the terminal user with respect to selected activities of an exercise program, and/or other content related to an exercise program or the user's progress through the exercise program, to transfer to the terminal. See at least [0117]).
Regarding claim 2: Hjelt discloses the above limitations. Hjelt further discloses wherein the means for receiving the dynamical patient data are configured for receiving the dynamical patient data from an implantable device (the sensors 34 can also be located in accessory-like terminal 10 covers and/or in a wireless accessory. See at least [0033]).
Regarding claim 3: Hjelt discloses the above limitations. Hjelt further discloses wherein the dynamical patient data comprise at least one of a cardiovascular parameter, a respiratory parameter, and a motion-related parameter (the activity detection application is capable of interfacing with the sensor(s) 34 of the terminal to receive measurement(s) of the ambient and/or physiological condition(s) of the user, such as to receive heart rate measurements, and/or acceleration measurements indicative of movement over a distance for one or more periods of time. In this regard, the movement may be representative of the user taking one or more steps while performing one or more activities over those period(s) of time. See at least [0035])
Regarding claim 4: Hjelt discloses the above limitations. Hjelt further discloses wherein the apparatus further comprises means for receiving static patient data and/or external data; and the means for determining are further configured for determining the at least one new and/or updated exercise parameter, based at least in part on the static patient data and/or the external data (the activity detection application 30 can request, and thereafter receive, personal information from the user, as shown in block 36. The personal information can comprise any of a number of different pieces of information such as, for example, date of birth, gender, height and/or weight, as well as a step length for the user when walking and/or running. See at least [0037]. Also: the physiological information can comprise any one or more pieces of personal information of the user (e.g., date of birth, gender, height, weight, step length for the user when walking and/or running, etc.), and/or a selection of one or more activities performed by the user (e.g., automatic detection, walking, running, dancing, gardening (outdoor housework), performing housework (indoor housework), or participating in aerobics, badminton, basketball, football, soccer, golf, weight training, hiking, jumping rope, squash, table tennis, tennis, Nordic training, squash, racquet ball, etc.). Additionally, or alternatively, the physiological information can comprise, for each selected activity, a time stamp reflecting when the user started performing the activity, the heart rate of the user, the intensity value associated with the user, the duration of the activity, the number of detected steps, the speed at which the user performs the activity, the distance over which the user performs the activity, and/or the energy expended by the user in performing the activity. See at least [0110]. Also: after performing one or more operations based upon the piece(s) of physiological information, one or more destinations may select or otherwise determine content to return or otherwise transfer to the terminal 10 based upon the operation(s) performed by the destination(s), as shown in block 136. For example, a fitness trainer application may have a new exercise program, and/or modifications or adjustments to an existing exercise program (including one or more activities of an existing program), to transfer to the terminal. Also, for example, the fitness trainer application may have new or adjusted goals for the terminal user with respect to selected activities of an exercise program, and/or other content related to an exercise program or the user's progress through the exercise program, to transfer to the terminal. See at least [0117]).
Regarding claim 5: Hjelt discloses the above limitations. Hjelt further discloses means for determining a new and/or updated exercise plan for an ongoing and/or an upcoming patient exercise, based at least in part on the at least one new and/or updated exercise parameter (after performing one or more operations based upon the piece(s) of physiological information, one or more destinations may select or otherwise determine content to return or otherwise transfer to the terminal 10 based upon the operation(s) performed by the destination(s), as shown in block 136. For example, a fitness trainer application may have a new exercise program, and/or modifications or adjustments to an existing exercise program (including one or more activities of an existing program), to transfer to the terminal. Also, for example, the fitness trainer application may have new or adjusted goals for the terminal user with respect to selected activities of an exercise program, and/or other content related to an exercise program or the user's progress through the exercise program, to transfer to the terminal. See at least [0117]).
Regarding claim 6: Hjelt discloses the above limitations. Hjelt further discloses wherein the exercise data comprise at least one of a date and/or time of an exercise session comprising at least one exercise, at least one activity, and a corresponding duration, distance, number of repetitions, intensity, and/or speed (an intensity value can be determined for the user in performing the activity, as shown in block 46. The intensity value can be determined in any of a number of different manners. In one embodiment, for example, the intensity value can be determined based upon an average acceleration measurement. See at least [0046]).
Regarding claim 7: Hjelt discloses the above limitations. Hjelt further discloses wherein the at least one new and/or updated exercise parameter is determined during an ongoing exercise for live adjustment of the ongoing exercise; and/or the at least one new and/or updated exercise parameter is determined after a completed exercise for adjustment of an upcoming exercise (the destination(s) can be capable of performing operation(s) including adjusting an exercise program and/or setting at least one alert based upon an exercise schedule. In such instances, the destination(s) can further be capable of returning the adjusted exercise program and/or alerts to the terminal. In turn, the terminal can then be capable of performing operation(s) including modifying a calendar of the user, the calendar being capable of reflecting workout schedule(s) of the adjusted exercise program. Additionally or alternatively, the terminal can be capable of notifying the user of the adjusted exercise program, and/or executing the alert(s). To enhance the user's experience during performance of the activit(ies), the terminal can be capable of transferring physiological information, with the destination(s) being capable of adjusting
the exercise program and returning the adjusted exercise program to the terminal, and the terminal notifying the user of the adjusted exercise program, all during performance of the activit(ies) by the user. See at least [0012]).
Regarding claim 8: Hjelt discloses the above limitations. Hjelt further discloses a user interface for outputting the dynamical patient data and/or the new and/or updated exercise parameter; and/or further configured to send the dynamical patient data and/or the new and/or updated exercise parameter to a user device comprising a user interface for outputting the dynamical patient data and/or the new and/or updated exercise parameter (The user interface may also include a display 16 and a user input interface, both of which are also coupled to the controller. See at least [0029]. Also: the destination(s) can be capable of viewing the physiological information, as well as creating, modifying or otherwise customizing workout programs or routines, including setting reminders, alarms or the like (collectively referred to as "alerts") based upon a schedule of performing the activities of a workout program. In this regard, the destination(s) can be further capable of communicating with the terminal to transfer content to the terminal, such as the created, modified or otherwise customized workout programs or routines, and/or the alert(s). As such, the system and method of managing physiological information facilitate use of the terminal, while providing a better experience for a user of the terminal. See at least [0100]. Also: based upon the piece(s) of physiological information, generate an exercise program (including one or more selected activities) for a terminal user, guide the user through the exercise program, and/or modify, customize or otherwise adjust the program and/or the user's goals (goals with respect to the selected activities) based upon the user's progress through the exercise program, including the user's progress through one or more activities of the exercise program. In yet another example, a calendar application can generate an exercise schedule by scheduling the terminal user to perform one or more selected activities, such as those activities of an exercise program generated by a fitness trainer application. The exercise schedule can then be incorporated into the exercise program, if so desired. The calendar application can also be capable of setting one or more alerts based upon the exercise schedule to thereby facilitate the terminal user performing the activit(ies) of an exercise program, or more particularly performing the scheduled activit(ies) of the exercise program. See at least [0115]).
Regarding claim 9: Hjelt discloses the above limitations. Hjelt further discloses wherein the new and/or updated exercise parameter is determined such as to keep the at least one physiological parameter within a predetermined interval during an ongoing and/or upcoming exercise (The pieces of physiological information recorded by the activity detection application 30 can thereafter be compared to goals of the user. For example, the recorded heart rate, energy expended, duration, distance and/or detected steps can be compared to goals for heart rate, energy expended, duration, distance and/or detected steps, respectively. See at least [0065]. Also: During the run, then, the personal trainer can be capable of adjusting or otherwise modifying the scheduled activity based upon the physiological information. For example, the personal trainer can modify the duration (e.g., increasing/decreasing the time from thirty minutes) of the selected activity, modify the selected activity (e.g., changing the activity from running to walking), and/or modify one or more other schedules activities of the exercise program (e.g., increasing/decreasing the duration of other scheduled activities, and/or modifying one or more other activities). See at least [0122]).
Regarding claim 10: Hjelt discloses the above limitations. Hjelt further discloses further configured to provide the dynamical patient data and/or the new and/or updated exercise parameter to a remote device (the terminal is capable of deriving physiological information relating to the terminal user. Thereafter, embodiments of the present invention are capable of managing the physiological information so as to provide for an enhanced user experience by permitting the terminal to transfer one or more pieces of physiological information to one or more destinations. For example, embodiments of the present invention permit terminal users to share physiological information with one another by transferring physiological information among a number of respective terminals. Additionally, or alternatively, embodiments of the present invention permit the terminal user to transfer physiological information to one or more destinations such that the destination(s) can provide content to the terminal based upon the physiological information, such as an adjusted exercise program and/or alerts to perform activities of an exercise program. See at least [0010]).
Regarding claim 11: Hjelt discloses the above limitations. Hjelt further discloses wherein the means for determining are configured to determine the at least one new and/or updated exercise parameter at least in part based on feedback from the remote device (after performing one or more operations based upon the piece(s) of physiological information, one or more destinations may select or otherwise determine content to return or otherwise transfer to the terminal 10 based upon the operation(s) performed by the destination(s), as shown in block 136. For example, a fitness trainer application may have a new exercise program, and/or modifications or adjustments to an existing exercise program (including one or more activities of an existing program), to transfer to the terminal. Also, for example, the fitness trainer application may have new or adjusted goals for the terminal user with respect to selected activities of an exercise program, and/or other content related to an exercise program or the user's progress through the exercise program, to transfer to the terminal. See at least [0117]).
Regarding claim 13: Hjelt discloses the above limitations. Hjelt further discloses a sensor configured to acquire the dynamical patient data comprising at least one physiological parameter and to provide the dynamical patient data to the apparatus; wherein preferably the sensor is an implantable device (The terminal may also have one or more sensors 34 for sensing the ambient conditions of the terminal or terminal user, or one or more physiological conditions of the terminal user. In this regard, the terminal may include sensors such as, for example, a heart rate sensor, a positioning sensor, a touch sensor, an audio sensor, a compass sensor, an ambient light sensor, an ambient pressure senor, and/or an ambient temperature sensor. See at least [0032]).
Regarding claim 14: Hjelt discloses the above limitations. Hjelt further discloses a user device configured to receive the dynamical patient data and/or the new and/or updated exercise parameter and to provide them to a user via a user interface; or wherein the apparatus comprises a user interface for providing the dynamical patient data and/or the new and/or updated exercise parameter (The user interface may also include a display 16 and a user input interface, both of which are also coupled to the controller. See at least [0029]. Also: the destination(s) can be capable of viewing the physiological information, as well as creating, modifying or otherwise customizing workout programs or routines, including setting reminders, alarms or the like (collectively referred to as "alerts") based upon a schedule of performing the activities of a workout program. In this regard, the destination(s) can be further capable of communicating with the terminal to transfer content to the terminal, such as the created, modified or otherwise customized workout programs or routines, and/or the alert(s). As such, the system and method of managing physiological information facilitate use of the terminal, while providing a better experience for a user of the terminal. See at least [0100]. Also: based upon the piece(s) of physiological information, generate an exercise program (including one or more selected activities) for a terminal user, guide the user through the exercise program, and/or modify, customize or otherwise adjust the program and/or the user's goals (goals with respect to the selected activities) based upon the user's progress through the exercise program, including the user's progress through one or more activities of the exercise program. In yet another example, a calendar application can generate an exercise schedule by scheduling the terminal user to perform one or more selected activities, such as those activities of an exercise program generated by a fitness trainer application. The exercise schedule can then be incorporated into the exercise program, if so desired. The calendar application can also be capable of setting one or more alerts based upon the exercise schedule to thereby facilitate the terminal user performing the activit(ies) of an exercise program, or more particularly performing the scheduled activit(ies) of the exercise program. See at least [0115]. Also: The terminal may also have one or more sensors 34 for sensing the ambient conditions of the terminal or terminal user, or one or more physiological conditions of the terminal user. In this regard, the terminal may include sensors such as, for example, a heart rate sensor, a positioning sensor, a touch sensor, an audio sensor, a compass sensor, an ambient light sensor, an ambient pressure senor, and/or an ambient temperature sensor. See at least [0032]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hjelt et al. (US 2005/0171410 A1) in view of Callaghan (US 2019/0366154 A1).
Regarding claim 12: Hjelt discloses the above limitations. As previously noted, Hjelt discloses determining the at least one new and/or updated exercise parameter based at least in part on the dynamical patient data and the exercise data. Hjelt does not disclose an artificial intelligence-based assistant. However, Callaghan teaches an artificial intelligence-based assistant (if the identified deviation indicates that the user is not squatting deep enough during a squatting exercise, the suggestion generated by the training assistant module 102 may recommend that the user performs supplemental box squat exercises and/or the device 100 can indicate a notification that will vibrate when the user hits depth (e.g., taking the weight down low enough in the exercise to properly perform the exercise). See at least [0037]. Also: wherein the training assistant module comprises an artificial intelligence (AI) sub-module that, in response to execution by the processor, tracks, over time, the results of the generated suggestion as implemented by the user and crowdsources the tracked results to determine the effectiveness of the generated suggestion, the AI sub-module, in response to execution by the processor, adjusts the generated suggestion for other users based on the determined effectiveness. See at least [0067]).
Hjelt provides a system that monitors a user and suggests modifications to an exercise program, upon which claimed invention’s use of an artificial intelligence assistant can be seen as an improvement. However, Callaghan demonstrates that the prior art already knew of using an artificial intelligence assistant to suggest exercises. One of ordinary skill in the art could have trivially applied the techniques of Callaghan to the system of Hjelt to generate the exercise modifications. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that such an application of Callaghan would have resulted in an improved system which would have provided more effective exercise recommendations (Callaghan, [0067]). As such, the application of Callaghan, and the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in view of the disclosures of Hjelt and the teachings of Callaghan.
Additional Considerations
The prior art made of record and not relied upon that is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure can be found in the PTO-892 Notice of References Cited.
Caylor (US 2008/0071146 A1) describes monitoring a user’s exercises based on an implanted sensor.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bion A Shelden whose telephone number is (571)270-0515. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 12pm-10pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kambiz Abdi can be reached at (571) 272-6702. 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.
/Bion A Shelden/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3685 2026-08-08
Prosecution Insights