US 9987520

Here's a concise summary of US patent 9987520, "Method and system for monitoring and feed-backing on execution of physical exercise routines":

• Title: Method and system for monitoring and feed-backing on execution of physical exercise routines
• Assignee: Flow Motion Research and Development Ltd
• Inventors: Arie Shavit, Idit Perl Shavit, Alon Shavit
• Filing Date: March 27, 2015
• Issue Date: June 5, 2018
• Abstract: The patent describes a system and method for monitoring the performance of physical exercise routines. It includes motion and position sensors to generate sensory information (e.g., rate of movements), a database with optimal routine execution information, and a training module. The training module compares the user's sensory information to the optimal routine data to detect dissimilarities, particularly if the pace is incorrect. It then provides feedback to the user, including instructions for correcting the pace, which is displayed on a display.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

Independent Claim 1:
This claim describes a system for monitoring physical exercise routines. It comprises:

1. Motion and Position Sensors: These generate sensory information about a user's movements, including the rate of movements, while the user performs an exercise routine.
2. A Database: This stores "routine information," which represents an optimal way to perform the physical exercise routine.
3. A Training Module: This is configured to:
   • Compare the sensory information from the user to the optimal routine information from the database.
   • Detect "dissimilarities" in this comparison, where these dissimilarities specifically indicate an incorrect pace in the exercise routine.
   • Provide feedback to the user. This feedback includes instructions aimed at correcting the user's pace during the physical exercise routine.
4. A Display: This component is used to show the feedback to the user.

Independent Claim 12:
This claim describes a method for monitoring the performance of a physical exercise routine. It involves the following steps:

1. Receiving Sensory Information: Sensory information is received from multiple motion and position sensors. This information includes at least the rate of a user's movements as they perform a physical exercise routine.
2. Comparing Sensory Information: The received sensory information is compared to routine information that is stored in a database. This comparison aims to detect "dissimilarities," which indicate if the pace of performing the physical exercise routine is incorrect.
3. Providing Feedback: Based on the detected dissimilarities, feedback is provided to the user. This feedback includes instructions related to correcting the user's pace.

CAFC 2026 Dockets:
No results were found in the CAFC 2026 dockets specifically for US patent 9987520. Thus, there is no information available regarding current litigation involving this patent in the CAFC for the year 2026.

It appears there is no specific litigation publicly reported for US patent 9987520 in the provided search results. The results discuss general patent litigation trends, a case regarding standing to sue for patent infringement, and a class-action lawsuit unrelated to this patent.

Proceedings overview

There are no PTAB (Patent Trial and Appeal Board) proceedings on file for US Patent 9987520. This gives a defendant a neutral defensive posture, as the patent has not been challenged or validated through the AIA trial process.

Strategic summary

All claims of US9987520 remain UNTESTED in the context of AIA trial proceedings, as there is no record of any IPR, PGR, or CBM challenges. This means that all original claims of the patent are presumed valid and have not been subjected to PTAB scrutiny based on prior art or other patentability grounds. Consequently, there is no estoppel landscape established by PTAB proceedings for potential petitioners. The absence of PTAB activity could indicate several things: the patent may not have been widely asserted yet, potential challengers may not have identified strong grounds for an AIA trial, or disputes involving this patent have been resolved through other means (e.g., licensing, private settlement, district court litigation).

Recommended next steps

As there is no PTAB activity, there are no specific FWDs to link to or trial-stage milestones to note. If you are a defendant facing assertion of this patent, you would need to evaluate the patentability of the claims independently, considering all available prior art, to determine potential grounds for an IPR or other challenge. The absence of prior PTAB challenges means that any infringement theory built on the patent's claims has not been subjected to administrative review.

Inventors

• Arie Shavit (Flow Motion Research and Development Ltd)
• Idit Perl Shavit (Flow Motion Research and Development Ltd)
• Alon Shavit (Flow Motion Research and Development Ltd)

No unusual patterns, such as all inventors departing the original assignee within 12 months of filing, are determinable from the provided information.

Original assignee

The original assignee is Flow Motion Research and Development Ltd.

Based on the patent description, Flow Motion Research and Development Ltd developed and patented the "Method and system for monitoring and feed-backing on execution of physical exercise routines," suggesting they ship a product embodying the claims, or at least developed the underlying technology. Their primary line of business appears to be in the field of physical training and monitoring systems.

The current status of Flow Motion Research and Development Ltd is "Active" as per Google Patents.

Assignment timeline

No assignment records for US patent 9987520 were found on the USPTO Assignment Center. This indicates that the original assignee, Flow Motion Research and Development Ltd, likely still owns the patent.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9987520
    2015 : Filed by Flow Motion Research and Development Ltd
    2018 : Issued to Flow Motion Research and Development Ltd

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Not present. There are no recorded assignments to any shell entities.
2. Known asserter in the chain — Not present. There are no recorded assignments to any known NPEs.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Not present. There are no recorded assignments, therefore no recurrent correspondents.
4. Cascading transfers — Not present. No assignments are recorded.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — Not present. No assignments are recorded, and no litigation has been identified from the CAFC dockets.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Unclear. While a company named "Flowmotion" (without "Research and Development Ltd" suffix) filed for bankruptcy in 2019, it appears to be a different entity based on its stated business of "in-person guided movement sessions" and involvement with Kickstarter. The patent's assignee, "Flow Motion Research and Development Ltd," is distinct and still listed as "Active" on Google Patents. There is no direct evidence to suggest the original assignee of this patent has filed for bankruptcy.
7. Privateering — Not present. There is no evidence of the patent being transferred to an NPE to assert on behalf of an operating company.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present. The patent has not been assigned to any known defensive aggregators.

Verdict

Insufficient data. There are no recorded assignments for US patent 9987520 on the USPTO Assignment Center. Therefore, no ownership chain exists to analyze for NPE patterns. The patent appears to remain with the original assignee, Flow Motion Research and Development Ltd.

To verify, search for "9987520" at the USPTO Assignment Center: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/

The user asked for an obviousness analysis of US patent 9987520 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, identifying combinations of prior art and motivation to combine them.

The patent itself acknowledges the existence of motion and position sensors, such as Kinect® integrated into an XBOX 360® gaming console, which track a player's body position and motion in space and generate skeletal models. It explicitly states that these existing systems "do not provide any means for identifying a motion routine performed by a user and do not provide feedback with regard to the execution of such a routine."

The patent also references US 2010/0197399 to Geiss for "skeletal model representation and generation thereof."

To render US 9987520 obvious, we need to find prior art that, when combined, would teach:

1. A system/method for monitoring physical exercise routines using motion/position sensors and skeletal models.
2. A database for optimal routine information.
3. A training module to compare user input to optimal routine information to detect dissimilarities.
4. Specifically, that these dissimilarities indicate an incorrect pace.
5. Providing feedback with instructions to correct the pace.
6. A display for said feedback.

Combination of Prior Art:

A person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) at the time of the invention (priority date 2011-01-26) would have been motivated to combine the following references:

1. Microsoft Kinect® / XBOX 360® (General Knowledge / Patent Background) and US 2010/0197399 to Geiss:

• Elements Taught: The Kinect® system, as described in the patent's background and known publicly, provides a "plurality of motion and position sensors" to generate "sensory information including at least a rate of movements of a user" by tracking body position and motion in space and generating skeletal models. Geiss further elaborates on skeletal model representation and generation. The XBOX 360® provides a "display" for visual output. These elements directly address the sensor and display components of claims 1 and 12, and the foundation for capturing user movement data.
• Motivation to Combine: The motivation for a PHOSITA to use the advanced skeletal tracking capabilities of a system like Kinect (as described in the background and supplemented by Geiss for technical detail) for exercise monitoring would be to leverage its precise, markerless motion capture to provide a more comprehensive and accessible way to track user movements during exercise compared to simpler sensors or manual observation. The patent itself highlights the lack of exercise monitoring and feedback in gaming systems as a problem to be solved, thereby motivating the adaptation of such sensor technology for this purpose.

2. Exercise Monitoring and Feedback Systems (e.g., US 2023/0414143 A1 to Keskisaari, et al. and US 7,775,945 B2 to Burton, et al. (published Aug 24, 2010)):

• Elements Taught:
  • Keskisaari (US 2023/0414143 A1), though published later, reflects underlying concepts present in the prior art space. It describes a system for analyzing and providing feedback on training effects, including measuring external work output (e.g., speed and altitude or power output) and continuously measuring heart rate during exercise. It explicitly mentions "providing feedback of characteristics of different exercise sections (intervals)" and that "exercise can be freely performed." It also discusses the calculation of training effect and load based on intensity values. The ability to measure "speed" directly relates to pace. Although this specific patent post-dates the priority date, the underlying concepts of measuring speed, heart rate, and providing feedback based on exercise performance were established in prior art relating to fitness trackers and exercise monitors.
  • Burton (US 7,775,945 B2), published August 24, 2010 (prior to the priority date of US9987520), discloses a "portable apparatus with performance monitoring and audio entertainment features." This apparatus includes a GPS component to "automatically determin[e] a number of laps completed or a distance traveled and a speed in doing so." It also includes a heart rate monitor. The patent clearly states, "It is often desirable when exercising, particularly, for example, when walking, running, or hiking, to monitor a number of laps completed or a distance traveled and a speed in doing so." This reference explicitly teaches monitoring "speed" during exercise and the desirability of doing so. While it uses GPS and heart rate, the concept of monitoring and providing feedback related to speed (pace) during exercise is clearly disclosed.
  • These references, specifically Burton, provide the core concept of a "database containing routine information representing at least an optimal execution of the physical exercise routine" (e.g., target speed/pace for a run) and a "training module configured to compare the generated sensory information to the routine information to detect at least dissimilarities respective thereof, wherein the dissimilarities indicate if the pace of performing the physical exercise routine is incorrect" (e.g., comparing current speed to target speed). They also inherently teach "providing feedback to the user with at least instructions related to correcting the pace of performing the physical exercise routine" (e.g., a display on the portable apparatus showing current speed vs. target, or auditory cues).
• Motivation to Combine with Kinect/Geiss: A PHOSITA would be motivated to combine the detailed skeletal tracking of Kinect/Geiss with existing knowledge of exercise monitoring systems like Burton. The goal would be to enhance the capabilities of exercise monitoring beyond simple metrics like GPS speed or heart rate to include precise analysis of body movements and form, and to apply existing concepts of pace monitoring to a wider range of exercises not limited to outdoor running/walking. For example, applying "pace" monitoring to specific exercise movements (e.g., repetitions per minute for a bicep curl) would be an obvious extension once precise movement tracking is available. If a system can track overall speed (Burton), it is an obvious step to apply similar comparison and feedback principles to the rate of movement of specific body parts (Kinect/Geiss) during an exercise routine.

Analysis of Obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103:

Independent Claim 1 (System):

1. Plurality of motion and position sensors configured to generate sensory information including at least a rate of movements of a user performing the physical exercise routine: Taught by Kinect®/XBOX 360® and Geiss. Kinect uses motion and position sensors to track body movements and generate skeletal models, from which the "rate of movements" can be derived.
2. A database containing routine information representing at least an optimal execution of the physical exercise routine: Taught by Burton, which describes monitoring speed against a desired performance. Extending this to store optimal body poses or movement sequences (as derived from Kinect/Geiss) would be an obvious design choice for an exercise monitoring system.
3. A training module configured to: compare the generated sensory information to the routine information to detect at least dissimilarities respective thereof, wherein the dissimilarities indicate if the pace of performing the physical exercise routine is incorrect; provide feedback to the user with at least instructions related to correcting the pace of performing the physical exercise routine:
   • Comparison and detection of dissimilarities in exercise performance were known from systems like Burton (comparing actual speed to desired speed).
   • The specific focus on "pace" and "correcting the pace" is directly taught by Burton.
   • The application of this principle to skeletal motion data from Kinect/Geiss to determine if the rate of specific movements (e.g., reps per minute, or speed of a limb swing) is incorrect would be an obvious implementation. A PHOSITA would understand that "rate of movements" directly relates to "pace" in the context of physical exercise.
4. And a display for displaying the feedback: Taught by Kinect®/XBOX 360® (TV display for games) and Burton (display on portable apparatus for showing speed/heart rate).

Independent Claim 12 (Method):

1. Receiving, from a plurality of motion and position sensors, sensory information including at least a rate of movements of a user performing the physical exercise routine: Taught by Kinect®/XBOX 360® and Geiss.
2. Comparing the sensory information to routine information stored in a database to detect at least dissimilarities respective thereof, wherein the dissimilarities indicate if the pace of performing the physical exercise routine is incorrect: Taught by Burton, which compares actual speed to optimal speed, indicating an incorrect pace. Applying this comparison to motion sensor data from Kinect/Geiss for a wider range of exercises would be an obvious step.
3. Providing feedback to the user with at least instructions related to correcting the user's pace: Taught by Burton, which provides speed information to the user. The nature of feedback (instructions to correct pace) is a direct consequence of detecting an incorrect pace.

Conclusion on Obviousness:

A PHOSITA would have been motivated to combine the known capabilities of markerless motion tracking systems (such as Microsoft Kinect® as described in the background and further detailed by US 2010/0197399 to Geiss for skeletal models) with existing exercise monitoring and feedback systems (such as those described in US 7,775,945 B2 to Burton).

The motivation would be to enhance the precision and scope of exercise monitoring by using detailed skeletal data to analyze movements, and to apply the established principle of monitoring and providing feedback on "pace" (as taught by Burton) to a broader array of exercises quantifiable through skeletal tracking. The adaptation of existing feedback mechanisms to specifically instruct on pace correction based on the more granular motion data would be a logical extension, aimed at improving exercise efficacy and safety. The components of the claimed system and method, individually and in their functional relationship, were therefore either present in the prior art or would have been obvious to combine by a PHOSITA.The obviousness of US patent 9987520 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 can be assessed by examining combinations of prior art references that would have motivated a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) to arrive at the claimed invention. The core of the invention lies in using motion and position sensors to monitor a user's physical exercise routine, comparing the sensory information (specifically the rate of movements or "pace") to optimal routine information, detecting dissimilarities indicating an incorrect pace, and providing feedback with instructions to correct that pace via a display.

The patent itself identifies Microsoft's Kinect® integrated into an XBOX 360® gaming console as prior art, noting its ability to use motion and position sensors to identify a player's body position and motion in space, generating a "skeletal model". However, the patent explicitly states that these game systems "do not provide any means for identifying a motion routine performed by a user and do not provide feedback with regard to the execution of such a routine." The patent also references US 2010/0197399 to Geiss for "skeletal model representation and generation thereof."

To establish obviousness, a PHOSITA would be motivated to combine the skeletal tracking capabilities of the Kinect/Geiss with existing knowledge of exercise monitoring and feedback.

Combination of Prior Art References:

1. Primary Reference: Microsoft Kinect® / XBOX 360® (General Knowledge & Patent Background) and US 2010/0197399 to Geiss

• Elements Taught: The Kinect® system, as acknowledged by the patent, provides "motion and position sensors" that track a user's body movements and generate "skeletal model" outputs, which include coordinates describing joint locations and connected body bones. From this data, the "rate of movements" can be readily derived by analyzing changes in position over time. The XBOX 360® platform inherently includes a "display" for presenting visual information to the user. US 2010/0197399 to Geiss provides further technical detail on the representation and generation of such skeletal models.
• Motivation to Combine: A PHOSITA would be motivated to adapt this advanced, markerless motion capture technology, readily available and known at the time, for purposes beyond mere game control. Given the widespread interest in health and fitness, extending the Kinect's capability to "track motions of an athlete performing physical exercise procedures" would be an obvious application to leverage its precision in monitoring human movement. The patent itself implies this motivation by pointing out the deficiency of existing game systems in providing exercise feedback.

2. Secondary Reference: US 7,775,945 B2 to Burton et al. (Published August 24, 2010)

• Elements Taught: This patent, issued prior to the priority date of US 9987520, describes a "portable apparatus with performance monitoring and audio entertainment features." Critically, it discloses monitoring exercise, particularly for activities like walking, running, or hiking, to "monitor a number of laps completed or a distance traveled and a speed in doing so." The apparatus includes a GPS component to substantially automatically determine "speed" and a heart rate monitor to provide heart rate information. The patent explicitly notes the desirability of monitoring "speed" when exercising. This reference teaches the concept of:
  • A "database containing routine information representing at least an optimal execution of the physical exercise routine" (e.g., target speed/pace for a workout).
  • A "training module" (implied by the apparatus's processor) configured to "compare the generated sensory information to the routine information to detect at least dissimilarities respective thereof, wherein the dissimilarities indicate if the pace of performing the physical exercise routine is incorrect" (e.g., comparing current GPS-derived speed to a stored target speed).
  • "Providing feedback to the user with at least instructions related to correcting the pace of performing the physical exercise routine" (e.g., a display on the portable device showing current speed, allowing the user to adjust their pace, or potentially audio cues based on deviation).
• Motivation to Combine: A PHOSITA, observing the precise skeletal tracking provided by Kinect/Geiss (Reference 1), would be motivated to combine this with the proven concept of exercise monitoring and feedback, particularly concerning "pace" or "speed," as taught by Burton (Reference 2). The goal would be to create a more comprehensive and versatile exercise monitoring system that could analyze not just overall speed (like running pace via GPS) but also the pace of specific body movements (e.g., repetitions per minute for a strength exercise, or the tempo of a dance move) by leveraging the detailed motion data from the skeletal model. It would be an obvious extension to apply the established principles of comparing actual performance to optimal performance and providing corrective feedback, to this newly available granular motion data.

Obviousness Analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103:

Independent Claim 1 (System):

1. Plurality of motion and position sensors configured to generate sensory information including at least a rate of movements of a user performing the physical exercise routine: Taught by Kinect®/XBOX 360® and US 2010/0197399 to Geiss, which provide sensor technology capable of capturing detailed body movements and generating skeletal data from which movement rates can be derived.
2. A database containing routine information representing at least an optimal execution of the physical exercise routine: Taught by US 7,775,945 B2 to Burton, which stores desired performance metrics (e.g., target speed) for exercise routines. Extending this to store optimal sequences of skeletal positions or movement rates for a wider array of exercises, using data from Kinect-like sensors, would be an obvious design choice for an enhanced exercise monitoring system.
3. A training module configured to: compare the generated sensory information to the routine information to detect at least dissimilarities respective thereof, wherein the dissimilarities indicate if the pace of performing the physical exercise routine is incorrect; provide feedback to the user with at least instructions related to correcting the pace of performing the physical exercise routine: The concept of comparing sensed exercise data to optimal routine data to detect deviations and provide feedback, specifically concerning "pace" or "speed," is explicitly taught by US 7,775,945 B2. Applying this known principle to the rate of movements derived from skeletal tracking data (Kinect/Geiss) would be an obvious implementation. A PHOSITA would recognize that "rate of movements" is synonymous with "pace" in the context of exercise execution.
4. And a display for displaying the feedback: Taught by both the XBOX 360® and the portable apparatus in US 7,775,945 B2, both of which include displays for presenting information to the user.

Independent Claim 12 (Method):
The steps of the method claim are directly paralleled by the functionalities described above for the system claim.

1. Receiving sensory information...including at least a rate of movements: This step is enabled by the Kinect®/Geiss technology.
2. Comparing the sensory information to routine information... to detect at least dissimilarities... wherein the dissimilarities indicate if the pace... is incorrect: This comparison and pace detection is directly taught by US 7,775,945 B2 and its application to the more detailed motion data would be obvious.
3. Providing feedback... with at least instructions related to correcting the user's pace: The provision of feedback for pace correction is also directly taught by US 7,775,945 B2.

Therefore, a PHOSITA would have been motivated to combine the detailed skeletal tracking capabilities of systems like Microsoft Kinect® (as described in the patent's background and by Geiss) with the established principles of exercise monitoring and pace-based feedback as taught by US 7,775,945 B2 to Burton et al. This combination would lead to a predictable improvement in the accuracy and scope of exercise monitoring systems, allowing for precise tracking of movements and feedback on the pace of those movements for a broader range of physical exercises.