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 .
Applicant’s amendments dated 2/18/26 are hereby entered.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No.62/529,412, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. Claims 2-3, 88, 96, 98-100 all claim limitations in regard to the computer processor system being distributed across wearable, embeddable, motion capture, and/or vision-based tracking systems, and there is no support for these limitations in the ‘412 application. Therefore, the effective filing date of these claims is that of the instant Application, namely, 7/6/2018.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 3 and 100 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. Claims 3 and 100 contain limitations regarding the computer processor system being distributed among certain visual sensors and there is no written description support in the specification for this subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-6, 9-10, 12, 15-16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 84, 86-93 and 96-100 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-6, 9-10, 12, 15-16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 84, 86-93 and 96-100 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a mental process that can be performed by human being and/or a method of organizing human activity.
In regard to Claims 1 and 97, the following limitations can be performed as a mental process by a human being in terms of claiming collecting data, analyzing that data, and providing outputs based on that analysis which has been held by the CAFC to be an abstract idea in decisions such as, e.g., Electric Power Group, University of Florida Research Foundation, and Yousician v Ubisoft (non-precedential); and/or claim the teaching/training/evaluation of a human subject, which has been as identified by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) as a method of organizing human activity, in terms of the Applicant claiming:
[a] movement training [method] comprising:
[receving] multidimensional movement data for a subject performing primary movement units associated with an activity or task; and
[…]
generate a repertoire of movement patterns from the multidimensional movement data based on characteristic features associated with the primary movement units, wherein the movement patterns define a plurality of skill elements in the repertoire;
analyze the repertoire to identify multivariate skill attributes descriptive of the subject performing the primary movement units;
compute a composite score for each skill element in the repertoire based on the multivariate skill attributes defining each respective skill element;
generate a skill profile for the subject using the composite scores of the skill elements, defining a distribution of skill levels across the respective skill elements in the repertoire;
generate a skill status from the multivariate skill attributes, the skill status describing learning stages of the respective skill elements across the repertoire, characterized as one or more of the movement patterns for the subject to form, one or more of the movement patterns for the subject to consolidate, and one or more of the movement patterns for the subject to refine;
assess the skill profile and skill status to specify one or more training goals for the subject, wherein the training goals are selected to address deficiencies described by the multivariate skill attributes, to improve the skill profile;
generate a training schedule for the subject, wherein the training schedule comprises a set of the training goals, prioritized based on task requirements and the skill status; and
output the training schedule [to a visual display];
[…]
[the visual display] presenting and navigating the skill elements, wherein the skill elements are sorted based on the respective learning stages and prioritized based on the task requirements and skill status;
[receiving data regarding the subject’s] selecting one or more of the set of training goals to address one or more of the deficiencies described by the multivariate skill attributes; and
updating the skill status describing the learning stages, based on performance of one or more of the selected training goals by the subject;
[…]
In regard to the dependent claims, they also claim an abstract idea to the extent that they merely claim further limitations that likewise could be performed as a mental process by a human being and/or as a method of organizing human activity.
Furthermore, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because to the extent that additional elements are claimed either alone or in combination such as, e.g., a sensor system; a computer processor system with at least one microprocessor and memory, where the memory contains instructions embodying Applicant’s abstract idea as computer code; a user interface; cueing system; and/or employing a distributed processing system, these are merely claimed to add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., data gathering), to embody the abstract idea on a general purpose computer, and/or do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements that taken individually, and also taken as an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because to the extent that, e.g., a sensor system; a computer processor system with at least one microprocessor and memory, where the memory contains instructions embodying Applicant’s abstract idea as computer code; a user interface; cueing system; and/or employing a distributed processing system, these are generic, well-known, and conventional computer elements and are claimed for the generic, well-known, and conventional functions of collecting and processing data and/or providing an analysis based on that processing. As evidence that these additional elements are generic, well-known, and conventional, Applicant’s specification discloses the support for these elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). See, e.g., Figure 1 in Applicant’s PGPUB and text regarding same; see, e.g., p672 regarding the claimed user interface; see, e.g., p115 regarding the cueing system, and see, e.g., p118 regarding employing distributed processing system.
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.
Claims 1, 4-5, 9-10, 12, 15-16, 18, 24, 84, 86-87, 89-93, 96-97, and 99 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PGPUB US 20060166737 A1 by Bentley (“Bentley”), in view of PGPUB US 20160086500 A1 by Kaleal, III (“Kaleal”), further in view of PGPUB US 20080160491 A1 by Allen et al (“Allen”).
In regard to Claim 1, Bentley teaches an apparatus for movement skill training, the apparatus comprising:
a sensor system…task;
(see, e.g., paragraph 28; in regard to “multidimensional movement data” see, e.g., p118 in regard to three different axes of data being captured);
a computer processor system…sensor system, and further configured to:
generate…in the repertoire;
(see, e.g., p19, 128, and 131-138 in regard to identifying components of the golf swing (“movement patterns”) which each characterize various aspects (“characteristic features”) of the golf swing as well as are scored wherein a higher score identifies more skill (“define a plurality of skill elements in the repertoire”); see, e.g., p86 in regard to repeatedly performing the method, in other words, it being employed in order “to achieve task outcomes under a range of conditions”);
analyze…movement units;
(see, e.g., p139-143 in regard to second order parameters that combine certain first order parameters together (“multivariate skill attributes”); see, e.g., p86 in regard to repeatedly performing the method, in other words, “the subject performing the primary movement units including the task outcomes and conditions”);
compute a composite score…element;
(see, e.g., p144-146, in regard to calculating third order parameters from the second order parameters);
generate a skill profile…repertoire;
generate a skill status…refine;
(see, e.g., p147-148 in regard to calculating a kinetic efficiency index from the third order parameters (“a skill profile for the subject using the composite scores”) which is scaled so as to indicate the more successful is at completing the sub-movements of the golfing motion (“a skill status defining the movement patterns”));
assess…profile;
(see, e.g., p152 in regard to comparing the performance parameters to a catalog of exercises appropriate to those parameters);
generate…status; and
output the training schedule […]
(see, e.g., paragraphs 25, 50, and 152 in regard to outputting by a computer a set of exercises (“training schedule”))
[…]
updating the skill status…subject;
(see, e.g., p86 in regard to “[t]he cycle of test, collection, analysis, report, prescription and exercise is repeated as often as desired until the desired level of performance is achieved.”);
wherein the computer processor system…infrastructure
(see, e.g., p67, 319, and 325).
Furthermore, while Bentley teaches providing a set of exercises to the user via a computer it may not also teach the user having the ability to choose among those exercises in order to meet his/her training goals, however, in an analogous reference Kaleal teaches that functionality (see, e.g., Figure 6 and paragraph 206-208) in terms of using a GUI to present a workout comprises of sub-categories of exercises;
Furthermore, the combination of the cited prior art would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention because the cited prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the cited prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference; one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Specifically, it would have been obvious to have incorporated the teaching of Kaleal into the method taught by the otherwise cited prior art, in order to allow the user to better tailor his/her training regimen to meet his/her training goals by employing a GUI to display various exercises (“user interface is configured for presenting and navigating the skill elements” wherein the exercises themselves comprise “movement patterns [that] define a plurality of skill elements in the repertoire”) and allowing for their selection (“selecting the one or more of the set of training goals…”) that match the user’s training goals.
Furthermore, while the otherwise cited prior art may fail to specifically teach sorting visual outputs by task requirement and skill status/score, however, in analogous reference Allen teaches that functionality in terms of sorting by exercise and/or by score (see, e.g., p94)
Furthermore, the combination of the cited prior art would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention because the cited prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the cited prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference; one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Specifically, it would have been obvious to have add the teaching of Allen to the otherwise prior art, in order to highlight certain aspects of the training schedule and skill elements by sorting the visual displays bask on movement patterns and skill status/score.
In regard to Claim 4, see Bentley at, e.g., paragraph 28.
In regard to Claim 5, see Bentley at, e.g., paragraph 86.
In regard to Claim 9, see Bentley at, e.g., paragraphs 136-138 in regard to deriving the parameters of timing, club performance, and club accuracy (“skill status”) which are characterized by scores ranging from zero (need to form a new movement pattern) to 50 (existing movements to consolidate or optimize).
In regard to Claim 10, see Bentley at, e.g., paragraphs 139-148 in regard to combining scores, see, e.g., also, e.g., paragraphs 22 and 149 in regard to using benchmark values for movement data and making training suggestions from a target pool of testees (“population data”).
In regard to Claim 12, see Bentley at paragraph 25.
In regard to Claim 15, see Bentley at, e.g., paragraph 23 in regard to auditory biofeedback (“audible feedback”) and, e.g., paragraph 47 in regard to providing a computer generated display of the sensed motion in real time (“apparatus system”). See rejection of Claim 1 in regard to selecting training elements. In regard to selecting feedback cues Kaleal teaches making such choices in regard to choosing from exercises (see, e.g., Figure 6 and paragraph 206)
Furthermore, the combination of the cited prior art would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention because the cited prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the cited prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference; one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Specifically, it would have been obvious to have incorporated the teaching of Kaleal into the method taught by the otherwise cited prior art, in order to choose which feedback cues were preferred, in order to allow the user to choose what cues were appropriate for his/her situation.
In regard to Claim 16, see Bentley at, e.g., paragraph 33 in regard to providing instructions to the golfer. In regard to selecting feedback cues Kaleal teaches making such choices in regard to choosing from exercises (see, e.g., Figure 6 and paragraph 206)
Furthermore, the combination of the cited prior art would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention because the cited prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the cited prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference; one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Specifically, it would have been obvious to have incorporated the teaching of Kaleal into the method taught by the otherwise cited prior art, in order to choose which feedback cues were preferred, in order to allow the user to choose what cues were appropriate for his/her situation.
In regard to Claim 18, see Bentley at, e.g., paragraphs 131-135 in regard to parameters which are characterized by scores ranging from zero (need to form a new movement pattern) to 50 (existing movements to consolidate or optimize).
In regard to Claim 24, see Bentley at, e.g., paragraphs 22 and 149 in regard to using benchmark values for movement data and making training suggestions from a target pool of testees (“population data”).
In regard to Claim 84, see Bentley at paragraph 67.
In regard to Claim 86, see Bentley at paragraph 25.
In regard to Claim 87, see Bentley at paragraph 38.
In regard to Claims 89 and 91, see Bentley at, e.g., paragraphs 22 and 149 in regard to presenting a library of performance data for the user (“player profile”) in reference to a population. See also, e.g., F9.
In regard to Claim 90, see Bentley at, e.g., p22 in regard to employing weighting in regard to the library of performance data.
In regard to Claim 92-93, Bentley teaches analyzing movement patterns, which define task requirements as well as task outcomes and the range of conditions under which the outcomes are achieved.
In regard to Claim 96, see rejection of Claim 1.
In regard to Claim 99, see Bentley at, e.g., p49.
In regard to Claim 97, see rejection of Claim 1.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bentley, in view of Kaleal, further in view of Allen, further in view of PGPUB US 20170225033 A1 by Czaja (“Czaja”).
In regard to Claim 6, to the extent that Bentley teaches its system may be used for various sports (see, e.g., paragraph 151) it may fail to teach the claimed limitations, however, in an analogous reference Czaja teaches performing motion analysis in order to improve someone’s skiing (see, e.g., Figure 1A).
Furthermore, the combination of the cited prior art would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention because the cited prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the cited prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference; one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Specifically, it would have been obvious to have incorporated the teaching of Czaja into the method taught by the otherwise cited prior art, in order to provide better ski instruction.
Claims 2-3 and 88 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bentley, in view of Kaleal, further in view of Allen, further in view of PGPUB US 20170061817 A1 by METTLER MAY (“METTLER MAY”).
In regard to Claims 2-3, Bentley teaches these limitations (see, e.g., p28) with the exception of those regarding employing a distributed processing system, however, in an analogous reference METTLER MAY teaches those limitations (see, e.g., p269, 298, 302, and 309);
Furthermore, the combination of the cited prior art would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention because the cited prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the cited prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference; one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Specifically, it would have been obvious to have incorporated the teaching of METTLER MAY into the method taught by the otherwise cited prior art, and distributed the processing system including across the various sensor devices, in order to increase the flexibility of the system.
In regard to Claim 88, Bentley teaches analyzing a variety of different motions (see, e.g., p151) and Kaleal teaches analyzing interactions between multiple subjects at the same time (see, e.g., p219);
Furthermore, the combination of the cited prior art would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention because the cited prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the cited prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference; one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Specifically, it would have been obvious to have incorporated the teaching of Kaleal into the method taught by the otherwise cited prior art, by simultaneously gathering motion data from multiple subjects interacting together and tracking those interactions in order to provide feedback in regard to collaborative/cooperative sports.
Claim 98 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bentley, in view of Kaleal, further in view of Allen, further in view of METTLER MAY.
In regard to Claim 98, Bentley teaches these limitations (see, e.g., p28 and 49) with the exception of those regarding employing a distributed processing system, however, in an analogous reference METTLER MAY teaches those limitations (see, e.g., p269, 298, 302, and 309);
Furthermore, the combination of the cited prior art would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention because the cited prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the cited prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference; one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Specifically, it would have been obvious to have incorporated the teaching of METTLER MAY into the method taught by the otherwise cited prior art, and distributed the processing system including across the various sensor devices, in order to increase the flexibility of the system.
Claim 100 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bentley, in view of Kaleal, further in view of Allen, further in view of PGPUB US 20170061817 A1 by METTLER MAY METTLER MAY.
In regard to Claim 100, Bentley teaches these limitations (see, e.g., p56) with the exception of those regarding employing a distributed processing system, however, in an analogous reference METTLER MAY teaches those limitations (see, e.g., p269, 298, 302, and 309);
Furthermore, the combination of the cited prior art would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention because the cited prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the cited prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference; one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Specifically, it would have been obvious to have incorporated the teaching of METTLER MAY into the method taught by the otherwise cited prior art, and distributed the processing system including across the various sensor devices, in order to increase the flexibility of the system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments are addressed by the updated statements of rejection made supra, which were necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Mike Grant whose telephone number is 571-270-1545. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., except on the first Friday of each bi-week.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's Supervisory Primary Examiner, Peter Vasat can be reached at 571-270-7625. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL C GRANT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715