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 Amendment
Claims 1, 3-11 and 13-20 are pending
Claims 1, 5-11, 16-20 have been amended
Claims 2 and 12 have been cancelled
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 13-14, filed 3/3/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1 and 11 under U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The amendment reciting “training action of user” causes confusion because it is unclear if it is referring to a certain user within a set of users (for example, user 1, 2, 3, etc.) or a single user. Paragraph 54 of the specification recites “the training action of the users”, which raises confusion/questions as which user the claim is referring to. Thus, it is for these reasons the rejection is maintained.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 1 -20 under U.S.C. 101, see pages 15-16, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 1, the applicant argues that the claim is directed to a specific improvement to the internal data processing architecture of the computer-implemented training system, and provide a practical application and an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. However, according to MPEP 2106.05(a), there’s not significantly more in the claim to be considered an improvement. Applicant argues the claimed processor is not generic, however, there’s nothing in the claim to distinguish it from a generic processor. Utilizing a generic processor for mere data transformations in different coordinate systems is not enough to be considered an Improvement to a Computer. Thus, applicant’s arguments regarding the claim being directed to a specific improvement to the computer-implemented training system, and provide a practical application and an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field are not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
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 1 and 11 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 1 recites the limitation "training of user" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if it is referring to the user in line 4 or another user. If it is referring to the user in line 4, then it is recommended to amend to recite “… the user …”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "training of user" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if it is referring to the user in line 3 or another user. If it is referring to the user in line 4, then it is recommended to amend to recite “… the user …”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 3-10 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph for being dependent on claim 1.
Claims 13-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph for being dependent on claim 11.
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.
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
681
881
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 1, 3-11 and 13-20 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites a multiple sensor-fusing based interactive training system, comprising: a plurality of posture sensors, comprising: at least one inertia sensor, configured to sense posture data related to a training action of user; and at least one myoelectric sensor, configured to sense a plurality of myoelectric data related to the training action of user; a sensing module, coupled to the posture sensors and configured to output limb torque data according to the posture data, and output muscle group activation time data according to the myoelectric data; a processor, coupled to the sensing module and configured to execute: converting the limb torque data into a force-skeleton coordinate system according to a skeleton coordinate system, and then converting the force-skeleton coordinate system into a moment-skeleton coordinate system according to a skeleton coordinate system; converting the muscle group activation time data into a muscle strength activation time- skeleton coordinate system according to the skeleton coordinate system, and then converting the muscle strength activation time-skeleton coordinate system into a muscle strength eigenvalue-skeleton coordinate system according to the skeleton coordinate system; performing fusion calculation on the moment-skeleton coordinate system and the muscle strength eigenvalue-skeleton coordinate system; calculating evaluation data for a training action according to a result of the fusion calculation; and judging that the training action corresponds to one of a plurality of known exercise actions according to the evaluation data; and a display, coupled to the processor and configured to display the evaluation data and the plurality of known exercise action.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a system; therefore, it is a machine
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim recites the limitation of converting the limb torque data into a force-skeleton coordinate system according to a skeleton coordinate system, and then converting the force-skeleton coordinate system into a moment-skeleton coordinate system according to a skeleton coordinate system. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, of converting the limb torque data into a force-skeleton coordinate system then converting into a moment-skeleton coordinate system can be done by a human with pen and paper. For example, first by drawing a free body diagram of the limb, and then calculating the moments from forces, using cross-products of the position vector from the joint center to the application point of the force(r) and the for force vector (F) with the formula:
M
=
r
x
F
.
The claim recites the limitation of a muscle strength activation time- skeleton coordinate system according to the skeleton coordinate system, and then converting the muscle strength activation time-skeleton coordinate system into a muscle strength eigenvalue-skeleton coordinate system according to the skeleton coordinate system. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, converting the muscle group activation time data into a muscle strength eigenvalue-skeleton coordinate system can be done by a human with pen and paper. For example, one can map the global muscle data points into a local coordinate system defined by the skeleton, the perform a spectral decomposition (like principal component analysis) to find the muscle eigenvalue-skeleton system.
The claim recites the limitation of performing fusion calculation on the moment-skeleton coordinate system and the muscle strength eigenvalue-skeleton coordinate system. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, performing fusion calculation on the moment-skeleton coordinate system and the muscle strength eigenvalue-skeleton coordinate system can be done by a human with pen and paper.
The claim recites the limitation of calculating evaluation data for the training action according to a result of the fusion calculation. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, calculating evaluation data can be done by a human or with pen and paper.
The claim recites the limitation of judging that the training action corresponds to one of a plurality of known exercise actions according to the evaluation data. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, judging that the training action corresponds to one of a plurality of known exercise actions according to the evaluation data can be done by a human or with pen and paper.
The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of converting data, calculating data and making a judgement in a computer environment. The claimed computer and sensor components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform interactive training systems. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No.
the following additional elements merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the abstract idea, or merely includes instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea: a processor, coupled to the sensing module; a display, coupled to the computing module
the following additional elements merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea: display the evaluation data and the known exercise action
the following additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, because they are merely an incidental or token addition to the claim that does not alter or affect how the process steps of implementing a sensor-fusing based interactive training system are performed: a plurality of posture sensors, comprising: at least one inertia sensor, configured to sense posture data related to a training action of user; and at least one myoelectric sensor, configured to sense myoelectric data related to the training action of the user; a sensing module, coupled to the posture sensors and configured to output limb torque data according to the posture data, and output muscle group activation time data according to the myoelectric data
The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of converting data, calculating data and making a judgement in a computer environment. The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform interactive training systems. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. As noted previously, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of converting data, calculating data and making a judgement in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible.
Claim 3 is 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. Claim 3 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 3 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein when the at least one inertia sensor is disposed on a body of the user, the skeleton coordinate system corresponds to a body skeleton of the user, and the body skeleton of the user is obtained through an image capturing device.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 3 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 4 is 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. Claim 4 depends on claim 3, which depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 4 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein when the at least one inertia sensor is disposed on a training equipment, the skeleton coordinate system further corresponds to an equipment skeleton of the training equipment, and the equipment skeleton of the training equipment is obtained through the image capturing device.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 4 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 5 is 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. Claim 5 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 5 is further recites the element(s) “… an exercise model database, comprising a plurality of known exercise models; and an exercise simulation model module, coupled to the exercise model database and the processor, wherein the processor determines an exercise situation of the user based on a number of the posture sensors used by the user, wherein the processor performs pairing with the exercise simulation model module based on the exercise situation, and the exercise simulation model module selects one of 25 the known exercise models from the exercise model database based on the exercise situation.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 5 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 6 is 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. Claim 6 depends on claim 5, which depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 6 is further recites the element(s) “… a training data database, coupled to the processor , the training data database comprising training data and error data corresponding to each of the known exercise models, wherein the processor compares the evaluation data with the training data corresponding to the selected known exercise model to calculate a similarity between the training action of user and the selected known exercise model.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 6 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 7 is 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. Claim 7 depends on claim 6, which depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 7 is further recites the element(s) “… when the similarity is greater than or equal to a similarity threshold, the processor judges that the training action of user conforms to the selected known exercise model, and stores the evaluation data to the training data database to update the training data corresponding to the selected known exercise model, and the display displays the evaluation data and the plurality of known exercise actions; when the similarity is less than a similarity threshold, the processor judges that the training action of user does not conform to the known exercise models, and stores the evaluation data to the training data database to update the error data, and the display displays the evaluation data and a wrong exercise action message.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 7 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 8 is 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. Claim 8 depends on claim 5, which depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 8 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the at least one inertia sensor has an offset sensing unit, the at least one inertia sensor is disposed on a body of the user and is configured to sense a plurality of offset data when there is a relative offset between the at least one inertia sensor and the body of the user, and the sensing module outputs the limb torque data according to the posture data and the offset data, wherein the processor compares the evaluation data with the training data corresponding to the selected known exercise model, and judges whether the relative offset between the at least one inertia sensor and the body of the user exceeds an offset threshold, wherein when the relative offset is greater than the offset threshold, the display displays a sensor setting abnormal message.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 8 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 9 is 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. Claim 9 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 9 is further recites the element(s) “… calculating a left half straining value according to the pressure data, the limb torque data, and the left half muscle group activation time data; calculating a right half straining value according to the pressure data, the limb torque data, and the right half muscle group activation time data; performing another fusion calculation on left half straining data and right half straining data; and calculating left-right balance corresponding to the training action of the user according to a result of the another fusion calculation.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 9 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 10 is 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. Claim 10 depends on claim 9, which depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 10 is further recites the element(s) “… when the left-right balance is less than or equal to a balance threshold, the processor judges that straining of the left half and the right half of the body of the user is balanced, and continues to calculate the left-right balance corresponding to the training action of the user according to a result of the another fusion calculation; and when the left-right balance is greater than the balance threshold, the processor judges that straining of the left half and the right half of the body of the user is unbalanced, and the display displays the evaluation data and an unbalance message.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 10 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites a multiple sensor-fusing based interactive training method, comprising: sensing posture data related to a training action of a user through at least one inertia sensor of a plurality of posture sensors, and sensing myoelectric data related to the training action of user through at least one myoelectric sensor of the posture sensors; outputting limb torque data according to the posture data, and outputting muscle group activation time data according to the myoelectric data; converting the limb torque data into a force-skeleton coordinate system, and then converting the force-skeleton coordinate system into a moment-skeleton coordinate system according to a skeleton coordinate system; converting the muscle group activation time data into a muscle strength activation time-skeleton coordinate system , and then converting the muscle strength activation time-skeleton coordinate system into a muscle strength eigenvalue- skeleton coordinate system according to the skeleton coordinate system; performing fusion calculation on the moment-skeleton coordinate system and the muscle strength eigenvalue-skeleton coordinate system; calculating evaluation data for the training action according to a result of the fusion calculation; judging that the training action corresponds to one of a plurality of known exercise actions according to the evaluation data; and displaying the evaluation data and the plurality of known exercise actions.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a system; therefore, it is a machine
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim recites the limitation of converting the limb torque data into a force-skeleton coordinate system according to a skeleton coordinate system, and then converting the force-skeleton coordinate system into a moment-skeleton coordinate system according to a skeleton coordinate system. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, of converting the limb torque data into a force-skeleton coordinate system then converting into a moment-skeleton coordinate system can be done by a human with pen and paper. For example, first by drawing a free body diagram of the limb, and then calculating the moments from forces, using cross-products of the position vector from the joint center to the application point of the force(r) and the force vector (F) with the formula:
M
=
r
x
F
.
The claim recites the limitation of a muscle strength activation time- skeleton coordinate system according to the skeleton coordinate system, and then converting the muscle strength activation time-skeleton coordinate system into a muscle strength eigenvalue-skeleton coordinate system according to the skeleton coordinate system. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, converting the muscle group activation time data into a muscle strength eigenvalue-skeleton coordinate system can be done by a human with pen and paper. For example, one can map the global muscle data points into a local coordinate system defined by the skeleton, the perform a spectral decomposition (like principal component analysis) to find the muscle eigenvalue-skeleton system.
The claim recites the limitation of performing fusion calculation on the moment-skeleton coordinate system and the muscle strength eigenvalue-skeleton coordinate system. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, performing fusion calculation on the moment-skeleton coordinate system and the muscle strength eigenvalue-skeleton coordinate system can be done by a human or with pen and paper.
The claim recites the limitation of calculating evaluation data for the training action according to a result of the fusion calculation. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, calculating evaluation data can be done by a human or with pen and paper.
The claim recites the limitation of judging that the training action corresponds to one of a plurality of known exercise actions according to the evaluation data. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, judging that the training action corresponds to one of a plurality of known exercise actions according to the evaluation data can be done by a human or with pen and paper.
The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of converting data, calculating data and making a judgement in a computer environment. The claimed computer and sensor components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform interactive training systems. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No.
the following additional elements merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the abstract idea, or merely includes instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea: a plurality of posture sensors
the following additional elements merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea: displaying the evaluation data and the plurality of known exercise actions.
the following additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, because they are merely an incidental or token addition to the claim that does not alter or affect how the process steps of implementing a sensor-fusing based interactive training system are performed: sensing a plurality of posture data related to a training action of a user through at least one inertia sensor of a plurality of posture sensors, sensing a plurality of myoelectric data related to the training action of the user through at least one myoelectric sensor of the posture sensors; outputting a plurality of limb torque data according to the posture data, and outputting a plurality of muscle group activation time data according to the myoelectric data
The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of converting data, calculating data and making a judgement in a computer environment. The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform interactive training systems. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. As noted previously, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of converting data, calculating data and making a judgement in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible.
Claim 13 is 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. Claim 13 depends on claim 11, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 13 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein when the at least one inertia sensor is disposed on a body of the user, the skeleton coordinate system corresponds to a body skeleton of the user, and the body skeleton of the user is obtained through an image capturing device.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 13 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 14 is 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. Claim 14 depends on claim 13, which depends on claim 11, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 14 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein when the at least one inertia sensor is disposed on a training equipment, the skeleton coordinate system further corresponds to an equipment skeleton of the training equipment, and the equipment skeleton of the training equipment is obtained through the image capturing device.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 14 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 15 is 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. Claim 15 depends on claim 11, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 15 is further recites the element(s) “… determining an exercise situation of the user based on a number of the posture sensors used by the user; selecting one of a plurality of known exercise models based on the exercise situation.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 15 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 16 is 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. Claim 16 depends on claim 15, which depends on claim 11, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 16 is further recites the element(s) “… comparing the evaluation data with training data corresponding to the selected known exercise model to calculate a similarity between the training action of user and the selected known exercise model.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 16 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 17 is 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. Claim 17 depends on claim 16, which depends on claim 11, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 17 is further recites the element(s) “… when the similarity is greater than or equal to a similarity threshold, the training action of user conforms to the selected known exercise model is judged, the training data corresponding to the selected known exercise model is updated with the evaluation data, and the evaluation data and the plurality of known exercise actions are displayed; when the similarity is less than a similarity threshold, the training action of user does not conform to the known exercise models is judged, the evaluation data is updated as error data, and the evaluation data and a wrong exercise action message are displayed.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 17 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 18 is 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. Claim 18 depends on claim 15, which depends on claim 11, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 18 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the at least one inertia sensor has an offset sensing unit, the at least one inertia sensor is disposed on a body of the user, and the multiple sensor-fusing based interactive training method further comprises: when there is a relative offset between the at least one inertia sensor and the body of the user, sensing offset data, and outputting the limb torque data according to the posture data and the offset data; and comparing the evaluation data with the training data corresponding to the selected known exercise model, and judging whether the relative offset between the at least one inertia sensor and the body of the user exceeds an offset threshold, wherein when the relative offset is greater than the offset threshold, a sensor setting abnormal message is displayed.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 18 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 19 is 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. Claim 19 depends on claim 11, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 19 is further recites the element(s) “… calculating a left half straining value according to the pressure data, the limb torque data, and the left half muscle group activation time data; calculating a right half straining value according to the pressure data, the limb torque data, and the right half muscle group activation time data; performing another fusion calculation on left half straining data and right half straining data; and calculating left-right balance corresponding to the training action of the user according to a result of the another fusion calculation.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 19 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 20 is 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. Claim 20 depends on claim 19, which depends on claim 11, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 20 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein: when the left-right balance is less than or equal to a balance threshold, straining of the left half and the right half of the body of the user is balanced is judged, and the left-right balance corresponding to the training action of user is continued to be calculated according to a result of the another fusion calculation; and when the left-right balance is greater than the balance threshold, straining of the left half and the right half of the body of the user is unbalanced is judged, and the evaluation data and an unbalance message are displayed.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 20 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
US 20150081057 A1; Hamada; Kazuyuki et al. is a training device.
US 5474083 A; Church; John et al. is a Lifting monitoring and exercise training system.
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 CARL F.R. TCHATCHOUANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3991. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am -5:00am.
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, Huy Phan can be reached at 571-272-7924. 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.
/CARL F.R. TCHATCHOUANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/HUY Q PHAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights