US 10792537

Here's a concise summary of US Patent 10792537:

Title: System and method for providing a coach with live training data of an athlete as the athlete is performing a training workout

Assignee: Finish Time Holdings LLC

Inventors: Todd Martin

Filing Date: April 9, 2020

Issue Date: October 6, 2020

Abstract: An athlete tracking system and method for tracking an athlete during training sessions. The system includes a mobile tracking device wearable around a portion of the athlete's head, and a training log server for maintaining an athlete profile that includes a training record updatable by the athlete and a training plan supplied by a coach.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

• Claim 1 (System Claim): This claim describes a system that uses a training log server to manage multiple athlete profiles. Each profile contains a training record. The server is designed to synchronize with a device worn by the athlete, allowing live training data from the device to be directly stored in the athlete's training record during a workout. A processor in the system creates a graphical interface that lets a coach associate a workout plan with an athlete's profile. Before a coach can do this, the processor verifies that the athlete has granted the coach permission to access their profile and assign workouts. The system also gives the coach access to view the athlete's training record while the athlete is training.

• Claim 14 (Method Claim): This claim outlines a method for personalizing an athlete's training regimen using a web-based platform. The method involves creating an athlete profile on a training log server, where the profile includes a training record with fields for workout details like distance and time. The platform receives workout data from the athlete, including distance and time, and uses it to update the training record. The method also allows a coach to log in, view the athlete's profile, and upload a training plan to be associated with that athlete's profile.

• Claim 21 (System Claim): This claim describes a system for transferring an athlete's training data from a bike computer to an online training log. The system includes a bike computer designed to be mounted on a bike, which stores training data and has a wireless peer-to-peer communication transceiver. It also includes a mobile communication device (like a smartphone) with a processor and wireless transceiver to receive the data from the bike computer and format it. Finally, a web-based platform receives this formatted data from the mobile device and stores it in a training log server, updating the athlete's online training log.

• Claim 26 (Method Claim): This claim details a method for updating a user's online training log. It involves establishing a peer-to-peer wireless connection between a mobile training computer (like a bike computer) and a mobile communication device. Training data from the mobile training computer is transferred to the mobile communication device. This data is then formatted for transfer to a web-based platform, and finally, the formatted data is uploaded to the platform to update the user's online training log.

• Claim 29 (Device Claim): This claim describes a bike computer specifically designed for collecting and transmitting an athlete's training data during a session. The bike computer includes at least one sensor to measure training parameters (e.g., cadence or heart rate), a processor to collect this data, memory to store the collected data, and a wireless communication means to transmit the data to a training log.

Uncertainty Regarding CAFC Dockets:
Searches for "US patent 10792537 CAFC 2026 dockets" did not specifically identify any litigation involving this patent number in the provided 2026 CAFC docket summaries. Therefore, based on the provided search results, there is no authoritative information to confirm active litigation for US10792537 in the CAFC dockets for 2026.

I'll search for litigation records involving US Patent 10792537.

Let me search more specifically for litigation involving the patent owner and related patent family.

I found relevant results. Let me dig deeper into the specific cases and confirm which ones involve US10792537.

Litigation Involving US Patent 10,792,537 (US10792537B2)

Important threshold note on the identifier. The court filings I found write this patent as "U.S. Patent 10,792,537", while the Google Patents/authoritative text you supplied formats it as "US10792537B2." Applying your rule literally and not auto-correcting, I have verified these are digit‑for‑digit identical (10,792,537 ≡ 10792537) and are therefore the same patent — not a similar-but-different number. I did not treat any other number (e.g., 10,792,573, 10,799,763, 10,124,234) as this patent. I flag this only because the punctuation differs between sources.

Also, please note: the previously-generated "Patent summary" section of this analysis stated that searches "did not specifically identify any litigation involving this patent number." That finding is now superseded. A live PACER/RECAP docket record does exist for this patent, as set out below.

1. Finish Time Holdings, LLC v. Strava, Inc. — U.S. Patent 10,792,537 asserted

Grounding for '537's inclusion: The complaint's attachment list expressly includes "Exhibit 4 – US Patent 10,792,537" and "Exhibit 31 – Claim Chart re US Patent 10,792,537." The complaint asserts a portfolio of 13 patents in the same family (9,345,948; 9,889,340; 10,322,314; 10,792,537; 10,799,763; 10,918,911; 11,024,413; 11,120,902; 11,244,751; 11,322,240; 11,810,656; 11,923,066; 12,340,891), each with a corresponding file-history exhibit and claim chart.

Sources:

• https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/74658372/finish-time-holdings-llc-v-strava-inc/
• https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/74658372/1/4/finish-time-holdings-llc-v-strava-inc/
• https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/66288869/Finish_Time_Holdings,_LLC_v_Strava,_Inc
• https://ipverse.greyb.com/litigations/finish-time-holdings-llc-v-strava-inc--cod--1-26-cv-03752

Textual caveat: The date "August 17, 2026" in the docket is later than the "Current Date: April 26, 2026" given in the task instruction. Per your rule to prefer search results over assumptions, I report the docket date as retrieved rather than reconciling it to the prompt's date. Worth verifying against PACER directly, as RECAP-sourced entries can lag or carry header-date anomalies.

2. Finish Time Holdings, LLC v. Garmin LTD — family litigation, '537 not confirmed asserted

Secondary sources (Stanford NPE Litigation Database) index this case against US 9,345,948 and US 10,124,234 — both in the same Martin/Finish Time family, but neither is US10792537. One complaint-analysis source reproduces the asserted-claim mapping for U.S. Pat. No. 9,889,340 in the parallel Garmin action, and a separate docket source describes infringement allegations against Garmin's "Garmin Coach" and "Garmin Connect" features.

Because the patent-in-suit here issued October 6, 2020 (per the authoritative text), and this 2020 action predates or coincides with that issuance, US10792537/10,792,537 was likely not in the original complaint. I have no evidence it was ever added by amendment — treat this as unconfirmed. Do not assume '537 was asserted against Garmin without pulling the operative complaint/amended pleadings from PACER.

Sources:

• https://npe.law.stanford.edu/patent/10124234
• https://npe.law.stanford.edu/patent/9345948
• https://npe.law.stanford.edu/party/finish-time-holdings-llc
• https://ai-lab-cl-prod.azurewebsites.net/case/dct/med/2:20-cv-00184/doc/analysis/1

3. Finish Time Holdings LLC v. Garmin International Inc — D. Maine

Source: https://dockets.justia.com/browse/court-medce/noscat-10?page=3

4. Strava, Inc. v. Garmin Ltd et al — contextual, not a '537 assertion

The Strava complaint attaches "Exhibit 27 – Strava, Inc. v. Garmin Ltd et al Complaint," indicating a separate Strava–Garmin action. This is referenced as background in the Strava matter and does not appear to involve US10792537 as an asserted patent by Finish Time. I list it only to avoid confusion if you encounter it while pulling the Strava docket.

Negative findings / things I could not confirm

• No CAFC appeal involving US10792537 was identified. No Federal Circuit docket matching this patent number surfaced.
• No PTAB activity involving US10792537 (consistent with the earlier-generated PTAB section, which is unaffected by this search).
• No Unified Patents litigation-caselist entry was returned specifically for US10792537 (the portal results returned other Martin/Finish Time family members and unrelated patents, e.g., Fitbit/Nike/Under Armour entries).
• No declaratory-judgment action by an accused infringer against Finish Time Holdings specifically on '537 was identified.
• I could not retrieve the complete set of docket entries for either Garmin case, so their outcomes/status are genuinely unknown to me — I am not filling that gap with speculation.

Corroborating signal from the authoritative patent text

The Google Patents record for this patent carries a "Family has litigation" flag with a Darts‑IP family link (family ID 50486056), which independently corroborates that this patent family has been litigated. That flag is consistent with the Finish Time Holdings campaigns against Garmin and Strava identified above.

Bottom line

One case directly asserts US10792537: Finish Time Holdings, LLC v. Strava, Inc., No. 1:26-cv-03752 (D. Colo.), filed Aug 17, 2026, pending before Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney. Two 2020 Finish Time Holdings v. Garmin actions (E.D. Tex. 2:20-cv-00112 and D. Me. 2:20-cv-00184) are family litigation but with no confirmed assertion of '537. If you need the Garmin case outcomes or the full Strava docket, the next step is a direct PACER pull of those dockets — the free aggregators I could reach are incomplete on both.

Proceedings overview

The USPTO ODP API indicates no AIA trial proceedings on file for US Patent 10792537. This means there is no PTAB activity to report.

Strategic summary

As of the current date, US Patent 10792537 has no record of any AIA trial proceedings (Inter Partes Review, Post-Grant Review, or Covered Business Method review) filed against it. This implies that all claims of the patent (claims 1-30) are currently untested by the PTAB. Consequently, there is no estoppel landscape to consider, as no grounds have been raised or could have been raised in an AIA trial.

The absence of PTAB activity is a notable signal. Well-asserted patents often become targets for IPRs or other AIA trials. The lack of such proceedings could suggest several possibilities, including that the patent has not been extensively asserted, that potential petitioners have not found strong grounds for invalidity under §§ 102 or 103, or that any prior assertions have settled before triggering PTAB challenges.

Recommended next steps

Since there is no PTAB activity on file for US Patent 10792537, a defendant facing assertion of this patent would have all potential prior-art grounds available for an AIA trial challenge. The absence of PTAB challenges means the patent has not been "hardened" by surviving such reviews, and its claims remain untested in this forum.

Inventors

• Todd Martin (Employer at time of filing: Finish Time Holdings LLC - inferred as the original assignee and inventor)

Original assignee

The original assignee, Finish Time Holdings LLC, appears to be an operating company based on the patent's description of a "web-based platform" for tracking athletic training data and enabling coach-athlete interaction. There is no information within the patent document to confirm if they shipped a product embodying the claims, their primary line of business, or their current status.

Assignment timeline

USPTO Assignment Search for US10792537 shows one assignment:

• 2026-05-03 (executed) / recorded 2026-05-03 — Reel 062772/0388
  • Conveyance: Assignment Of Assignor's Interest
  • Assignor: MARTIN, TODD
  • Assignee: FINISH TIME HOLDINGS, LLC
  • Correspondent: BRENT D. WITHAM, BRENT D. WITHAM, APC, 17822 E. 17TH ST., SUITE 200, TUSTIN, CA 92780.
  • Context: This appears to be an assignment of the inventor's interest to the original assignee.

It's important to note that the patent was filed on April 9, 2020, and granted on October 6, 2020. This assignment occurred in 2026, which is after the patent was granted. The Google Patents legal events also list "Assigned to FINISH TIME HOLDINGS, LLC" on 2026-05-03 as a reassignment, which aligns with the USPTO assignment record.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10792537
    2020 : Filed by Finish Time Holdings LLC
         : Issued to Finish Time Holdings LLC
    2026 : Inventor assigned to Finish Time Holdings LLC

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. The sole recorded assignment is from the individual inventor, Todd Martin, to the original assignee, Finish Time Holdings LLC. This does not indicate a transfer to a shell entity for licensing purposes.
2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. Finish Time Holdings LLC is not identified as a known asserter in public NPE lists.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — not present. Only one assignment is recorded, so there is no recurrence. The correspondent, BRENT D. WITHAM, BRENT D. WITHAM, APC, is not flagged as a known NPE correspondent.
4. Cascading transfers — not present. Only one assignment is recorded.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — unclear. While the assignment occurred after issuance, there is no information about any litigation related to this patent to assess if it was a pre-litigation transfer.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. There is no indication of bankruptcy proceedings for Finish Time Holdings LLC.
7. Privateering — not present. There is no information to suggest this patent was transferred to an NPE for assertion on behalf of an operating company.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The chain does not terminate at a known defensive aggregator.

Verdict

Insufficient data. Only one assignment record is available, which indicates the inventor formally assigned their interest to the original assignee, Finish Time Holdings LLC, after the patent was granted. This alone does not provide sufficient signals to confidently categorize the patent as belonging to an NPE, an operating company for assertion, or a defensive aggregator. More information on Finish Time Holdings LLC's product sales and any litigation history would be needed. (USPTO Assignment Center search for US10792537: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/)

I'll research the prior-art citations for US 10792537. Let me pull the citation records from multiple sources.

Let me pull the citation tables from Justia and other patent databases.

Let me try to retrieve the actual citation tables directly.

Prior-Art / Citation Analysis — US 10,792,537 B2

1. Scope, source, and a data-quality warning (read first)

Patent under analysis: US 10,792,537 B2 — "System and method for providing a coach with live training data of an athlete as the athlete is performing a training workout." App. No. 16/844,692; filed 2020‑04‑09; granted 2020‑10‑06; priority 2012‑10‑19; inventor Todd Martin; assignee Finish Time Holdings LLC.

What I could and could not retrieve:

• I was able to retrieve the front‑page (56) "References Cited" list for this exact patent number from the PubChem patent mirror of the Google Patents record (https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/patent/US-[10792537](/patent/10792537)-B2). That list was truncated mid‑entry (it cuts off at US‑2011…), so it is not the complete citation table. I could not complete a full USPTO Patent Public Search / Patent Center "References Cited" pull within this session, and a direct Justia pull for justia.com/patent/10792537 did not return within the tool budget.
• Strict rule observed: I have not auto-corrected any identifier. Every document number below is reproduced exactly as retrieved, including US-2146304-A, which is anomalous (see §3).
• I am explicitly not fabricating titles, dates, or disclosures. For each reference I flag whether the identification is verified (came from a search result in this session), high confidence (well-known reference, consistent across sources), or unverified (document number retrieved, but I could not confirm title/date/content).

2. Retrieved citation list — US 10,792,537 B2 (front-page (56) references)

Reproduced verbatim from the retrieved record (list is incomplete/truncated):

US grants
US-2146304-A, US-4612623-A, US-4831242-A, US-6002982-A, US-6013007-A, US-6059692-A, US-6442505-B1, US-6608563-B2, US-6837827-B1, US-6985875-B1, US-7047214-B2, US-7158689-B2, US-7254516-B2, US-7395167-B2, US-7800646-B2, US-7876352-B2, US-7934983-B1

US pre-grant publications
US-2002193923-A1, US-2003109972-A1, US-2004117072-A1, US-2004201738-A1, US-2005195094-A1, US-2006064731-A1, US-2006125930-A1, US-2006136173-A1, US-2006235765-A1, US-2006287930-A1, US-2007118239-A1, US-2007158949-A1, US-2007208544-A1, US-2007288157-A1, US-2008052349-A1, US-2008252297-A1, US-2008300914-A1, US-2009011907-A1, US-2009141138-A1, US-2009192391-A1, US-2009231147-A1, US-2009233771-A1, US-2009278707-A1, US-2010004097-A1, US-2010036736-A1, US-2010088023-A1, US-2010149305-A1, US-2010151996-A1, US-2010191827-A1, US-2010210975-A1, US-2010210421-A1, US-2011003664-A1, US-2011090092-A1, US-2011098928-A1 … (list truncated)

Note on the surrounding family: the same specification was cited against / cross-listed with sibling patents whose (56) lists are materially the same, including US 10,322,314, US 10,799,763, US 10,918,911, US 11,024,413, US 11,120,902, US 11,244,751, US 11,322,240 (all Martin / Finish Time Holdings). That means the effective "prior-art universe" for this family is the union of these lists — and it is large (the Justia list for US 11,923,066 alone runs to well over 150 entries).

3. Per-reference notes (only where I can responsibly say something)

What is determinative at a high level: every reference I could date in this list pre‑dates the 2012‑10‑19 priority date, and the list is dominated by (a) wearable/multi‑sensor athletic-performance monitoring, (b) networked exercise equipment with remote data handling, and (c) bicycle cycle‑computer hardware. That is exactly the field the claims sit in.

4. § 102 anticipation mapping (claim-by-claim)

Because the complete citation table was truncated and I could not full‑text‑verify each reference, the following is a candidate mapping with confidence levels, not a legal conclusion. Anticipation under § 102 requires a single reference disclosing every element as arranged in the claim.

Claim 1 (system: training-log server + athlete profiles; server synchronized with a worn device so data is entered during training; processor generates coach GUI to associate a coach-created workout; processor queries the server for a grant by the athlete; processor provides coach access to the training record during training).

• No single cited reference appears to anticipate. The three‑part combination — (i) live device‑synchronized record population, (ii) a stored, queried athlete‑grant authorization step, and (iii) coach live access during the session — is the crux, and it is a combination claim.
• Best § 102 candidates for sub‑elements: US-2007288157-A1 (Peterman) and US-6013007-A for (i); US-6059692-A / US-2009011907-A1 (Radow) for networked exercise data with user‑side control for (ii); none shown to reach (iii).
• Assessment: anticipation unlikely on the cited art; § 103 exposure is the real question.

Claim 14 (method: profile with distance/time fields; receive & update workout data; coach logs in and views profile; coach uploads training plan).

• Most vulnerable claim to § 102/§ 103 art. Candidates: US-6059692-A (remote interactive exercise equipment with stored user data and remote equipment access), US-6013007-A, and the older US-4831242-A / US-4612623-A health‑club control/data art. If any of these discloses an athlete profile with distance and time fields plus a remote trainer logging in to view it and assign workouts, claim 14 anticipates.
• Assessment: plausible § 102 hit on claim 14 if the record/plan‑upload element is present; must be verified against full text.

Claims 21 & 26 (bike computer → mobile device via peer‑to‑peer wireless → formatted upload to web training log; and the corresponding method).

• Candidates: US-6442505-B1 (bicycle trip meter/computer), US-2003109972-A1 (Tak, wireless fitness device), US-2005195094-A1 (White), plus general wireless‑sync art from the mid‑2000s.
• Assessment: the hardware elements (bike computer, wireless, intermediate device, server upload) are individually old; the claimed novelty rests on the peer‑to‑peer hop plus formatting for the web log. A reference disclosing Bluetooth/Wi‑Fi bike‑computer‑to‑phone sync to an online log would anticipate. I did not find a verified single reference doing all of it.

Claim 29 (bike computer: sensor + processor + memory + wireless means to transmit to a training log).

• Most § 102‑exposed claim in the patent. Candidates: US-6442505-B1 (bicycle cycle computer), US-2003109972-A1, and the general cycle‑computer art. Adding cadence/heart‑rate sensors and a wireless transmitter to a "training log" destination was, by 2012, a crowded field.
• Assessment: strong anticipation risk from a bicycle‑computer reference combined with an online‑log reference; a single‑reference § 102 hit requires one reference to name the "training log" destination, which may not exist.

5. Two contradictions / flags relative to the earlier-generated sections

Flag 1 — the "Obviousness" section likely mis-designates the primary art. That section builds its § 103 case on Martin '213 (Ser. No. 13/484,213) and Martin '232 (Prov. 61/705,232). Both are the same inventor/applicant's own earlier applications, and they appear in the specification as incorporated-by-reference material, not as front‑page cited art. Under the pre‑AIA regime governing a 2012‑10‑19 priority date, a reference must be "by others" to qualify under § 102(a)/(e), and pre‑AIA § 103(c) further excluded same‑inventor/common‑ownership subject matter. As of this writing, Martin '213 and Martin '232 should not be treated as prior art against this patent; the earlier section's motivation‑to‑combine reasoning therefore needs re-grounding on third‑party art drawn from the (56) list above. (Analogous caveat applies to US-2010191827-A1, listed under a "Martin" surname in the family's reference lists — confirm whether it is the applicant's own disclosure.)

Flag 2 — citation posture. The litigation section reported that the family "has litigation" per Darts‑IP (litigation link on the Google Patents record). Combined with the observation that the examiner's cited art here appears to be largely "A"‑category background art rather than "X"/"Y" art (the cited references skew to network‑enabled exercise equipment and cycle computers rather than to coach‑authorization/tele‑coaching), the practical read is that the live‑coach‑access‑during‑training + stored‑athlete‑grant limitations are what carry the claims — which is also why these claims are the ones worth attacking in an IPR rather than claims 14/29.

6. Honest bottom line

• The complete, verified citation table for US 10,792,537 B2 could not be assembled within this session; what is presented is the partial, mirrored list from PubChem/Google Patents, reproduced without alteration.
• On the art I could identify, no single reference appears to anticipate claim 1; the greatest § 102 risk sits with claim 29 (bike computer with sensor/processor/memory/wireless) and claim 14 (profile + remote coach view/upload), contingent on full‑text verification.
• Recommended verification steps: (1) pull the certified "References Cited" from USPTO Patent Center for App. 16/844,692; (2) obtain the complete (56) list from the sibling US 11,923,066 Justia/Google record as a proxy for the family's art universe; (3) full‑text check US-2007288157-A1, US-2009011907-A1, US-6059692-A, US-6442505-B1, US-7254516-B2 against claims 1, 14, 21, 26 and 29; (4) resolve the US-2146304-A anomaly.

Would you like me to prioritize any one of claims 1, 14, 21/26 or 29 for a deeper element-by-element chart once the full citation table is obtained?

Obviousness Analysis of US Patent 10792537 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103

This analysis evaluates the obviousness of US Patent 10792537, titled "System and method for providing a coach with live training data of an athlete as the athlete is performing a training workout," under 35 U.S.C. § 103, considering prior art available as of the patent's priority date of October 19, 2012.

Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (PHOSITA)

A PHOSITA in this field at the priority date would be a software developer or systems engineer with experience in developing web-based platforms, mobile applications, and integrating sensor data for fitness or sports. They would possess knowledge of database management, user interface design, wireless communication protocols (e.g., Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, ANT+, GPS), and the functional needs of athletes and coaches for tracking performance and managing training regimens.

Relevant Prior Art References

The patent itself identifies several relevant prior art documents through its continuation chain and references:

1. Martin '213 (U.S. application Ser. No. 13/484,213, filed May 30, 2012): Titled "System and Method for Providing an Athlete with a Performance Profile," this application was filed prior to the priority date of US10792537. The specification of US10792537 explicitly states that "Details of a preferred rankings generator are found in U.S. application Ser. No. 13/484,213...the entire disclosure of which is incorporated by reference herein." It also states, "Details of a preferred medial portal are found in U.S. application Ser. No. 13/484,213." This reference provides a foundation for a web-based platform for athlete profiles, training logs, and performance tracking.
2. Martin '232 (U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/705,232, filed Sep. 25, 2012): Titled "Interface and Method for Updating an Athlete Training Log," this provisional application was also filed prior to the priority date. US10792537 explicitly references it, stating, "An example of a system for providing a live feed to a training log is described in U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/705,232...the entire disclosure of which is incorporated by reference herein." This reference introduces the concept of providing a "live feed to a training log" from a tracking device.

General Knowledge in 2012

At the priority date, it was common knowledge that:

• Web-based platforms were widely used for managing user data and content.
• Mobile devices (smartphones, tablets) were ubiquitous and capable of various wireless communications (cellular, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, GPS).
• Wearable fitness sensors (e.g., heart rate monitors, GPS watches) were commercially available and often integrated with fitness tracking applications.
• Data transfer between devices and cloud-based platforms, including peer-to-peer protocols, was an established technology.
• Role-based access control and user-granted permissions were standard security features in web applications.

Obviousness Analysis of Independent Claims

Claim 1 (System Claim)

Claim 1 describes a system with a training log server, athlete profiles, live synchronization with a wearable device, a processor for a coach GUI, coach authorization, and providing the coach access to live training data during training.

A PHOSITA would have found this system obvious through a combination of Martin '213 and Martin '232, augmented by general knowledge:

• Training log server, athlete profiles, and training records: Martin '213 discloses a "System and Method for Providing an Athlete with a Performance Profile," which inherently involves a server maintaining athlete profiles and training data for performance tracking. The common understanding of athletic training systems at the time suggests that such profiles would contain detailed training records.
• Synchronization with a device worn by an athlete for live data entry: Martin '232 explicitly teaches "a system for providing a live feed to a training log" from a "GPS-enabled device which is Internet ready so that as the user is training, training data is being communicated 'live' to the user's personal training log on the platform." This directly covers the live entry of data from a worn device into the training record during training.
• Processor generating GUI for coach to associate workout with athlete profile: The concept of coaches providing training plans is central to the remote coaching relationship envisioned by US10792537. A PHOSITA, building on the athlete performance platform of Martin '213, would naturally implement a graphical user interface (GUI) to allow authorized coaches to interact with athlete profiles and assign workouts.
• Coach authorization based on athlete grant: Implementing robust access control, where an athlete grants a coach permission to view their profile and assign workouts, was a well-known security and privacy practice for web-based applications by 2012. A PHOSITA would be motivated to include such a feature to ensure user control and trust within a coaching platform.
• Processor providing coach access to training record during athlete's training: Given Martin '232's disclosure of a "live feed to a training log," a PHOSITA would have been highly motivated to extend this functionality to provide an authorized coach with access to this live training information. The patent itself notes, "Coaching dashboard 134 may be configured to provide the coach with live training information as the athlete is performing the workout." This enhances the value proposition of remote coaching by enabling real-time monitoring and intervention.

Motivation for Combination: A PHOSITA would combine the athlete performance profile management features of Martin '213 with the live data streaming capabilities of Martin '232 to create a comprehensive, real-time remote coaching system. The motivation would be to offer an improved coaching experience by allowing coaches to not only assign and review training plans but also to monitor athlete performance dynamically as it happens, thus enhancing feedback and program adjustment capabilities. Standard security and interface design principles would dictate the inclusion of authorization and GUI components.

Claim 14 (Method Claim)

Claim 14 describes a method for personalizing a training regimen, including creating athlete profiles, receiving and updating workout data (distance/time), permitting coach access to view profiles, and uploading/associating training plans.

All steps of Claim 14 describe conventional interactions within a web-based athletic training and coaching platform, as suggested by Martin '213.

• Creating athlete profiles with distance/time fields, receiving/updating workout data: Martin '213, by disclosing a system for providing an athlete with a performance profile, inherently suggests the creation of athlete profiles and the logging of workout data, including fundamental metrics like distance and time, which are universally tracked in athletic training.
• Permitting coach to log in and view athlete profile, uploading/associating training plans: The core functionality of a coach-athlete interaction system, as implied by Martin '213 and the broader context of remote coaching, necessitates allowing coaches to access athlete profiles (with appropriate authorization) and upload or associate training plans.

Motivation for Combination: A PHOSITA would implement these steps as fundamental components of any web-based platform designed to support athlete training and coach interaction, as broadly contemplated by Martin '213. The motivation is to facilitate the core functions of remote coaching by enabling coaches to easily provide training plans and review athlete progress through a digital platform, thereby personalizing training regimens efficiently.

Claim 21 (System Claim)

Claim 21 describes a system for transferring training data from a bike computer to an online training log via a mobile communication device using peer-to-peer wireless communication.

This system would have been obvious based on general knowledge and the implicit needs of an online training log system like that described in Martin '213.

• Bike computer with wireless peer-to-peer transceiver: Bike computers collecting and storing training data (e.g., speed, distance, cadence) were well-established by 2012. The use of peer-to-peer wireless communication protocols like Bluetooth or Wi-Fi Direct for device-to-device data transfer was also known and becoming common for consumer electronics. A PHOSITA would be motivated to integrate such wireless means into a bike computer to enable convenient, cable-free data transfer.
• Mobile communications device receiving and formatting data: Smartphones and tablets (mobile communication devices) were widely used as intermediaries for data transfer between specialized devices and web platforms. They inherently possessed processors and various wireless transceivers. Formatting data for a specific web-based platform is a routine software task for a mobile application.
• Web-based platform receiving and storing data in training log server: This element is clearly taught by Martin '213, which describes a "System and Method for Providing an Athlete with a Performance Profile" including a training log and athlete profiles.

Motivation for Combination: A PHOSITA, seeking to enhance the convenience and automation of updating an online training log (as provided by Martin '213) with data from specialized training devices like bike computers, would have been motivated to use a readily available mobile communication device as an intermediary. Employing known peer-to-peer wireless technologies (e.g., Bluetooth, Wi-Fi Direct) to connect the bike computer to the mobile device and then leveraging the mobile device's internet connectivity and processing power to format and upload the data to the web platform would be an obvious engineering choice for seamless data synchronization.

Claim 26 (Method Claim)

Claim 26 describes a method for updating an online training log by establishing a peer-to-peer link between a bike-mounted mobile training computer and a mobile device, transferring data, formatting it, and uploading it to a web-based platform.

This method claim directly describes the operation of the system claimed in Claim 21. The obviousness arguments for Claim 21 apply equally here.

• Establishing peer-to-peer link, transferring data: As discussed, employing known peer-to-peer wireless communication protocols (Bluetooth, Wi-Fi Direct) between devices was a conventional method for data exchange by 2012.
• Formatting data for web-based platform and uploading: Mobile applications routinely perform data formatting for backend web services and then upload the data. These are standard software development procedures.

Motivation for Combination: A PHOSITA would be motivated to simplify and automate the process of updating an online training log (as from Martin '213) with data from a mobile training computer like a bike computer. Utilizing a mobile communication device as a conduit via peer-to-peer wireless communication and then uploading the data to the web platform represents an obvious application of existing technologies to achieve greater efficiency and user convenience, eliminating manual data entry or wired connections.

Claim 29 (Device Claim)

Claim 29 describes a bike computer comprising sensors, a processor, memory, and wireless communication means for transmitting data to a training log.

This device claim would have been obvious based on the prior art and general knowledge in 2012:

• Bike computer with sensor(s), processor, memory: Bike computers existed as known devices prior to 2012, inherently including sensors (e.g., for speed, distance, cadence), a processor to collect data from these sensors, and memory to store the accumulated data. The patent states: "The bike computer includes at least one sensor for measuring data associated with a parameter of the athlete's training session; a processor configured to collect the training data from the at least one sensor; a memory for storing the training data collected by the processor."
• Wireless communications means for transmitting training data to a training log: Integrating wireless communication capabilities (e.g., Bluetooth, ANT+, Wi-Fi) into fitness devices, including bike computers, for data transfer was a known trend and an obvious improvement for enhancing user experience and facilitating integration with online platforms by 2012. The "training log" as a destination is consistent with online performance tracking systems like those contemplated by Martin '213.

Motivation for Combination: A PHOSITA would combine the core functionalities of a traditional bike computer (sensors, processor, memory) with known wireless communication means to provide a more convenient and modern device. The motivation would be to allow seamless, automated transfer of training data from the bike computer to an online training log, eliminating the need for manual data entry or wired connections, and aligning with the increasing integration of fitness devices with web-based platforms for comprehensive athlete tracking (e.g., as suggested by Martin '213).

Conclusion

Based on the analysis, a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (PHOSITA) at the time of the invention (priority date October 19, 2012) would have found the independent claims of US Patent 10792537 obvious. The combinations of features taught or strongly suggested by Martin '213 (U.S. application Ser. No. 13/484,213) and Martin '232 (U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/705,232), along with prevalent general knowledge in web-based platforms, mobile computing, and athletic data management, would have led a PHOSITA to the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success and clear motivations for combining the elements to achieve improved functionality in remote athletic coaching and training management.