DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
The previous objections to the claims have been withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims, filed 01/21/26. However, new claim objections have been presented, as discussed in detail below.
The previous rejections of claims 6-7, 12, and 17-18 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims. However, the rejections of claims 8-9 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been maintained, as presented in detail below.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Accordingly, claims 1-3, 8-9, and 12-14 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, as presented in detail below. Moreover, claims 5-7 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 in light of the amendments to the claims, as presented below.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Rubinstein fails to disclose analyzing anatomical points by tracking angles and positions of anatomical points to identify whether performance criteria for an exercise is met (Remarks, filed 01/21/26, pp. 8-10). Examiner respectfully disagrees. Rubinstein discloses tracking angles and positions of anatomical points of the user (e.g., angle and position of the user’s back relative to the vertical and angle and position of the user’s lower leg relative to the user’s thigh) during an exercise (e.g., lunge exercise), and comparing the tracked angles and positions of the plurality of the user’s anatomical points to that of a target musculoskeletal form for the lunge exercise, which indicates that the back of the user should be aligned approximately to the vertical within a threshold angle of error, and that the lower leg should be approximately at a 90 degree angle relative to the thigh, to identify whether performance criteria (the target musculoskeletal form) for the exercise is met (Figs. 8A-8D; [0054-0057]). Accordingly, the claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 103, as presented below.
Claim Objections
Claims 5, 8, 11, 13-14, and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“wherein identifying a plurality of anatomical points of the user further comprises” recited in claim 5, ln. 3 should likely read “wherein the identifying a plurality of anatomical points of the user further comprises” for clarity purposes;
“the ground truth values of the ground truth key points” recited in claim 8, ln. 4 should likely read “the ground truth values [[of]]associated with the ground truth key points” for consistency purposes and to avoid claim ambiguity;
“the content provider” recited in claim 11, ln. 5 should likely read “the exercise content provider” for consistency purposes;
“of the plurality of anatomical points. apply” recited in claim 13, ln. 9-10 should likely read “of the plurality of anatomical points[[.]], apply”;
“determine user performance information” recited in claim 14, ln. 3-4 should likely read “determine the user performance information”; and
“whenthe” recited in claim 18, ln. 2 should likely read “when the”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites “The method of claim 1, wherein the exercise has associated ground truth values represented as a sequence of anatomical angles and positions associated with ground truth key points, and wherein the user performance information comprises comparison results between the ground truth values of the ground truth key points for the exercise and the identified plurality of anatomical points of the user.” First, it is indefinite as to how the ground truth values differ from the exercise performance rules including the performance criteria that are associated with a tracked angle and position of at least one anatomical point, wherein the rules are applied to the user performance information, and the Specification does not offer further guidance (see, e.g., Specification, [0127], wherein when it is determined that an angle of a knee joint of a user is 60 degrees, and a ground truth angle of the knee joint corresponding to the particular state is 90 degrees, it is determined that the angle of the knee joint is not within the predetermined range of the ground truth angle of the knee joint for the particular state of the exercise). Second, it is indefinite as to how ground truth values are associated with and/or comprise ground truth key points, as required by the claim, and the Specification does not offer further guidance (see Specification, [0177], which is the only paragraph which mentions “ground truth key points” and which does not discuss ground truth values in relation to the ground truth key points).
Claim 9 is rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 8.
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 1-3, 5-9, 12-14, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, analyzed as representative claim:
[Step 1] Claim 1 recites “A method”, which falls within the “process” statutory category of invention.
[Step 2A – Prong 1] The claim recites a series of steps which can be practically performed by one or more humans through mental process (i.e., observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion) (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) and/or certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people – including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)).
Claim 1 recites: A method performed by an exercise system configured to display exercise content, the method comprising:
displaying exercise content associated with an exercise to be performed by a user (human activity: interactions between two individuals, e.g., teaching);
receiving a sequence of camera images of the user performing the exercise (mental process: observation/evaluation, but for generic computing component(s); human activity: interactions between two individuals, e.g., teaching, but for generic computing component(s));
identifying a plurality of anatomical points of the user from the sequence of camera images (mental process: observation/evaluation; human activity: interactions between two individuals, e.g., teaching);
determining user performance information for the exercise based on an analysis of the plurality of anatomical points (mental process: observation/evaluation; human activity: interactions between two individuals, e.g., teaching);
applying exercise performance rules to the user performance information, the exercise performance rules including performance criteria for satisfactory performance of the exercise, wherein the performance criteria are associated with a tracked angle and position of at least one anatomical point during a movement stage of the exercise (mental process: evaluation/judgment; human activity: interactions between two individuals, e.g., teaching);
tracking the plurality of anatomical points to identify whether the performance criteria for the exercise is met (mental process: observation/evaluation); and
providing feedback to the user based on the application of the exercise performance rules to the user performance information (human activity: interactions between two individuals, e.g., teaching).
The limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass certain methods of organizing human activity and/or mental processes but for the recitation of generic computing component(s), as shown above. For example, the claims encompass a human (e.g., coach, instructor, trainer, etc.) demonstrating an exercise and visually tracking anatomical points of a participant (e.g., during a squat, the observing human may focus on the hip, knee, and ankle joints of the participant) to mentally assess movement patterns and identify proper or improper performance and provide feedback (e.g., orally) accordingly. Thus, the claim recites abstract ideas.
[Step 2A – Prong 2] The claim fails to recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. That is, the claim recites the additional limitations of an exercise system for displaying the exercise content, and wherein the anatomical points are identified from a received sequence of camera images. However, these limitations are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than instructions to implement the abstract ideas in a computer environment, i.e., field of use (see Specification, [0052]; [0107]; [0153]; [0158], noting that the server 1202 and user device 1206 (e.g., “any suitable device(s), such as a user device, a mobile device (e.g., a mobile phone, tablet computer, a wearable computer, a laptop computer, and/or any other suitable mobile device) and/or a workout device”) may be “any suitable general-purpose computer” including “any suitable hardware” (e.g., display, camera, etc.)). Accordingly, the claim is directed to the abstract ideas.
[Step 2B] As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract ideas into a practical application, the claim does not further include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 13 recites an exercise system comprising a display device and a processing system for performing the limitations above. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality such that they do no amount to a particular machine or technical improvement thereof, nor do they represent an improvement in any other technology. Rather, the generic manner in which these additional elements are claimed amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract ideas in a computer environment, i.e., field of use. The claimed use of a display device to display content and a processing system to receive/transmit information is recited at a high level of generality with no details as to how these functions are achieved, and thus amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and data transmission/display. Thus, the additional limitations do not integrate the abstracts into a practical application or provide significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept). Furthermore, the Specification further demonstrates that the additional elements are recited for their well-understood, routine, and conventional functionality, and which refers to the elements of the exercise system in a manner that indicates that the elements are sufficiently well-known that the Specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy enablement (see Specification, [0007] & [0180]). Thereby, claim 13 is also not patent eligible.
Claims 2-3, 5-9, 12, 14, and 16-18 are dependent on claims 1 and 13 and therefore recite the same abstract ideas noted above. While the dependent claims may have a narrower scope than the independent claims, the claims fail to recite additional limitations that would integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application or provide significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept). Therefore, claims 2-3, 5-9, 12, 14, and 16-18 are also not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 12-14, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rubinstein et al. (U.S. Pub. 2019/0295437 A1) (hereinafter “Rubinstein”).
Regarding claim 1, Rubinstein discloses a method performed by an exercise system configured to display exercise content (Fig. 9; [0019]; [0021]), the method comprising:
displaying exercise content associated with an exercise to be performed by a user ([0029], wherein exercise information describing exercises to be performed by users is provided to client devices 110 and may include one or more types of media (e.g., image, photo, video, text, audio, etc.) indicating a target musculoskeletal form or instructions for performing an exercise);
receiving a sequence of camera images of the user performing the exercise (Figs. 5 & 9; [0023]; [0060], wherein sensor(s) (e.g., a camera) capture a set of images of a user during performance of an exercise);
identifying a plurality of anatomical points of the user from the sequence of camera images (Fig. 8A; [0054]; [0060], wherein dotted lines indicate anatomical points of the user’s lower leg, as well as the user’s back, for example);
determining user performance information for the exercise based on an analysis of the plurality of anatomical points (Fig. 8A; [0054]; [0060], where the set of images indicate musculoskeletal form of the user while performing the exercise, and wherein the sensed data is used to determine the angles of the user’s body parts (e.g., lower leg, back, etc.) during the exercise);
applying exercise performance rules to the user performance information, the exercise performance rules including performance criteria for satisfactory performance of the exercise, wherein the performance criteria are associated with a tracked angle and position of at least one anatomical point during a movement stage of the exercise (Figs. 8A-8D; [0054-0058]; [0060], wherein it is determined whether a level of similarly between the user and the target musculoskeletal form, based on the captured positions or orientations or certain segments of the user’s body, or one or more angles between particular segments or portions of the body, satisfies a criteria (e.g., if the differences in one or more angles are less than a threshold value, the level of similarity satisfies the criteria) and a classification of the musculoskeletal form is correspondingly provided (e.g., proper or improper));
tracking the plurality of anatomical points to identify whether the performance criteria for the exercise is met (Figs. 8A-8D; [0054-0057], tracking the anatomical points of the user (e.g., angle and position of the user’s back relative to the vertical, and angle and position of the user’s lower leg relative to the user’s thigh) during an exercise (e.g., lunge exercise)); and
providing feedback to the user based on the application of the exercise performance rules to the user performance information ([0024]; [0033]; [0061], wherein feedback is provided to the user, via the client device 110, using at least the classification).
Regarding claim 2, Rubinstein further discloses wherein the exercise comprises a plurality of movement stages to be performed in sequence (Figs. 4-5; [0030]; [0048], where exercise information includes exercises workouts (e.g., to be completed in one session), wherein an exercise workout includes one or more exercise sets (i.e., a plurality of movement stages to be performed in sequence), and further, wherein an exercise (e.g., kneeling superman exercise) may comprise a starting position, extended position, etc.); and
wherein determining the user performance information for the exercise further comprises analyzing the plurality of anatomical points to determine whether the user has performed the movement associated with each of the movement stages of the exercise (Figs. 4-5; [0023]; [0030-0032], wherein exercise data (e.g., an angle of a joint or portion of the body of a user) is detected and adherence in completing exercises is determined).
Regarding claim 3, Rubinstein further discloses wherein the sequence of camera images is captured while the exercise content is being displayed (Figs. 5 & 9; [0022-0024]; [0029]; [0033-0034]; [0060]).
Regarding claim 5, Rubinstein further discloses wherein the sequence of camera images comprises a sequence of two-dimensional images (Figs. 4-5; [0004]; [0023]);
wherein identifying a plurality of anatomical points of the user further comprises identifying a plurality of anatomical points on the two-dimensional images (Fig. 8A; [0054]).
Regarding claim 6, Rubinstein further discloses wherein tracking the plurality of anatomical points to identify whether the performance criteria for the exercise is met includes tracking the plurality of anatomical points in three-dimensional space (Figs. 8A-8D; [0034]; [0048]; [0054-0058], wherein the images may be 2D or 3D images).
Regarding claim 7, Rubinstein further discloses providing corrective feedback to the user when the performance criteria for the exercise is not met (Figs. 5-6; [0024]; [0033]; [0050-0051]; [0060-0061], where feedback is provided based at least on the classification of the musculoskeletal form (e.g., proper or improper) and may include comments such as “extend arm” or “straighten back”).
Regarding claim 8, Rubinstein further discloses wherein the exercise has associated ground truth values represented as a sequence of anatomical angles and positions associated with ground truth key points, and wherein the user performance information comprises comparison results between the ground truth values of the ground truth key points for the exercise and the identified plurality of anatomical points of the user (Figs. 8A-8D; [0054-0058]).
Regarding claim 9, Rubinstein further discloses calculating a score for the user’s performance of the exercise based on the comparison results between the ground truth values for the exercise and the identified plurality of anatomical points of the user ([0033], wherein the feedback may indicate whether a user is performing or performed an exercise with proper musculoskeletal form (i.e., based on the comparison with proper classifications or a target musculoskeletal form) and wherein the feedback may be a numeric value such as a score or a metric (e.g., a rating of how closely the user matches the proper form)); and
displaying a feedback screen associated with the user’s performance of the exercise, including the score as a measure of the user’s performance (Fig. 1; [0024]; [0033], wherein the feedback is provided to the client device 110 which includes an electronic display for presenting images, feedback, or other exercise related information).
Regarding claim 12, Rubinstein further discloses wherein the exercise is a mat-based exercise, a weightlifting exercise, a treadmill exercise, a cycling exercise, or a rowing exercise (Fig. 4; [0030]; [0048], e.g., weight (i.e., barbell or dumbbell) exercise or mat exercise (i.e., kneeling superman exercise)).
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 is an exercise system to perform the method of claim 1, and thereby is rejected for like reasoning (Rubinstein, Fig. 1; [0019-0022]).
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 is an exercise system to perform the method of claim 2, and is thereby rejected for like reasoning.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 is an exercise system to perform the method of claim 5, and is thereby rejected for like reasoning.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 is an exercise system to perform the method of claim 6, and is thereby rejected for like reasoning.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 is an exercise system to perform the method of claim 7, and is thereby rejected for like reasoning.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 4, 15, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rubinstein in view of DiLaura (U.S. Pub. 2017/0272112 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Rubinstein further discloses displaying the exercise content for the exercise on a display device comprising a housing, wherein the camera captures the sequence of camera images while the exercise content is being displayed (Figs. 5 & 9; [0022-0024]; [0029]; [0060], wherein the client device 110 including a display (housing) presents exercise information (e.g., exercises to be performed by the user) and further includes a camera for capturing a set of images of the user while performing the exercises). However, Rubinstein may not further explicitly disclose the housing having a recessed portion and a camera arm configured to be inserted in the recessed portion of the housing in a first position and partially inserted in the recessed portion of the housing in a second position; and extending the camera arm to expose a camera on one end thereof to position the camera to capture camera images. Nevertheless, DiLaura teaches these limitations (Figs. 1 & 3A-3B; [0011-0012]; [0025-0029], wherein a case 10 (housing) of a smartphone has a recess 12 for storing an adjunct camera 20 located at the end of arm (rod) 30, wherein the arm 30 may be retracted in the recess (first position) or telescoped out from the recess (second position) to expand the reach of the smartphone for easily capturing images and videos). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a housing such as a smartphone case having a recessed portion and a camera arm with a camera on one end thereof and which may be extended from the recessed portion of the housing to capture images, as taught by DiLaura, in the invention of Rubinstein, which utilizes a client device, such as a smartphone, as well as the camera of the client device for capturing a set of images ([0025]; [0060]), in order to expand the reach of the smartphone and easily capture photos and videos (DiLaura, [0011-0012]).
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 is an exercise system to perform the method of claim 4, and is thereby rejected for like reasoning.
Regarding claim 19, Rubinstein discloses an exercise system comprising a display device configured to displaying exercise content, the display device comprising: a housing; a display screen on a front portion of the housing […] a camera […] to capture a sequence of camera images of a user performing an exercise while the exercise content is being displayed (Figs. 5 & 9; [0022-0025]; [0029]; [0060], wherein the client device 110 (e.g., smartphone) including a display (e.g., display screen on the front portion of the smartphone) (housing) presents exercise information (e.g., exercises to be performed by the user) and further includes a camera for capturing a set of images of the user while performing the exercises). Rubinstein may not further explicitly disclose a recessed portion on a back portion of the housing; and a camera arm configured to be inserted in the recessed portion of the housing in a first position and partially inserted in the recessed portion of the housing in a second position; wherein the camera arm is further configured to extend to expose a camera on one end thereof to capture images. Nevertheless, DiLaura teaches these limitations (Figs. 1 & 3A-3B; [0011-0012]; [0025-0029], wherein a case 10 (housing) of a smartphone has a recess 12 for storing an adjunct camera 20 located at the end of arm (rod) 30, wherein the arm 30 may be retracted in the recess (first position) or telescoped out from the recess (second position) to expand the reach of the smartphone for easily capturing images and videos). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a housing such as a smartphone case having a recessed portion and a camera arm with a camera on one end thereof and which may be extended from the recessed portion of the housing to capture images, as taught by DiLaura, in the invention of Rubinstein, which utilizes a client device, such as a smartphone, as well as the camera of the client device for capturing a set of images ([0025]; [0060]), in order to expand the reach of the smartphone and easily capture photos and videos (DiLaura, [0011-0012]).
Regarding claim 20, Rubinstein further explicitly discloses wherein the sequence of images comprises two-dimensional images (Figs. 4-5; [0004]; [0023]); and
wherein the display device is further configured to identify a plurality of anatomical points of the user on the two-dimensional images (Fig. 8A; [0054]).
While Rubinstein may not explicitly disclose convert the two-dimensional (“2D”) anatomical points to three-dimensional (“3D”) anatomical points, Rubinstein discloses wherein the images may be 2D or 3D images, and further, wherein if the images comprise 2D images ([0004]; [0034]; [0048]), depth information (e.g., from a depth sensor) may be used to provide the images in 3D ([0023]; [0034]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to convert the two-dimensional anatomical points to three-dimensional anatomical points using the depth data captured from additional sensor(s) (e.g., depth sensor), to avoid the need for a depth imaging camera to reduce costs (Rubinstein, [0023], wherein sensors may include a camera and a separate depth sensor).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rubinstein.
Regarding claim 10, Rubinstein further discloses displaying the exercise content for the exercise on a display device (Fig. 4, #410; Figs. 8C-8D; Fig. 11, #1110; [0024]; [0029]; [0056-0057]; [0067]); and
wherein the exercise content is generated by: receiving the exercise content ([0024]; [0029], wherein exercise content is received by the user via the client device);
identifying a sequence of exercises within the exercise content and associated timing information for each exercise (Figs. 4-5; [0030]; [0048], where exercise information includes exercises workouts (e.g., to be completed in one session), and wherein an exercise workout includes one or more exercise sets, and further, wherein time per set may be identified to determine whether the user struggled when completing a specific exercise set);
identifying, for each exercise, at least one correction (Figs. 4-6; [0049-0051], wherein feedback (e.g., at least one correction) maybe identified for each exercise (e.g., kneeling superman exercise, a specific repetition, etc.)); and
presenting a user interface to the exercise content provider for verification of the identified exercises, timing information, and at least one correction (Figs. 5-6; [0049-0051]; [0060], i.e., user interface layout 500 or 600, wherein the provider can verify the identified exercises, timing information (e.g., determination whether the user struggled), and at least one correction (e.g., extend arm, straighten back)).
Rubinstein further discloses where the provider can provide feedback content regarding the exercise (e.g., exercise content) ([0023]; [0037]; [0049-0051]; [0061]). However, Rubinstein may not further explicitly disclose wherein the received exercise content, regarding a selection of an exercise to be performed, is received from an exercise content provider. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to allow for the provider to also select/send the exercise content regarding a selection of an exercise to be performed, wherein the provider refers to physical therapists, doctors, physicians, coaches, as the provider is “suited to provide input regarding exercise performance of health of users for specific areas in general” (Rubinstein, [0022]).
Regarding claim 11, Rubinstein further discloses wherein the exercise content is further generated by: receiving, from the exercise content provider, a verification of identified exercises, timing information, and at least one correction (Figs. 5-6; [0049-0051]; [0060], i.e., user interface layout 500 or 600, wherein the provider verifies the identified exercises, timing information (e.g., determination whether the user struggled), and at least one correction (e.g., extend arm, straighten back));
receiving a user feedback message from the content provider for the at least one correction (Figs. 5-6; [0033-0034]; [0049-0051]; [0060-0061]); and
storing the exercise content including the identified exercises, associated timing information, the identified at least one correction, and the user feedback message ([0029]; [0031]; [0056]; [0065], wherein the user information as well as exercise information are stored).
While Rubinstein may not explicitly disclose wherein the identified exercises, associated timing information, identified corrections, and user feedback message are stored, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to store said information as part of the user information (e.g., identified corrections and user feedback message) and exercise information (e.g., identified exercises and associated timing information) (Rubinstein, [0029]; [0031]; [0056]; [0065]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 ALYSSA N BRANDLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4280. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30am-5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Dmitry Suhol, can be reached at (571)272-4430. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALYSSA N BRANDLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/DMITRY SUHOL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715