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 . This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s reply filed 12/11/25. Claims 1, 7, and 10 have been amended, claims 5, 6, 16-20 have been canceled. Claims 1-4, and 7-15 are pending.
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 1-4, and 7-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 recites an exercise coaching device based on artificial intelligence. The limitation of an image capturing unit configured to capture an exercise image of an exercising object, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “image capturing unit,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “image capturing unit” language, “capture” in the context of this claim encompasses the user watching another user exercise. Similarly, the limitations of: generating, receiving and outputting are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. The same interpretation is applied to the remaining steps in claim 16. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – image capturing unit. The image capturing unit is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor implementing a step) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using an image capturing unit amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Similar reasoning is applied to claims 1-4, and 7-15.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “unit” in claims 1, 2, 4, 7-15.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication No. 2021/0001172 A1 to Namboodiri (hereinafter “Namboordiri”) in view of US Patent No. 11,961,601 B1 A1 to Kissos et al. (hereinafter “Kissos”).
Concerning claim 1, Namboordiri discloses an exercise coaching device based on artificial intelligence (Abstract, paragraph [0005]), the exercise coaching device comprising:
an image capturing unit configured to capture an exercise image of an exercising object (paragraph [0031]);
an exercise pose extraction unit configured to generate pose data by extracting an exercise pose of the exercising object from the exercise image (paragraphs [0033]-[0035]);
an exercise pose analysis unit based on the artificial intelligence and configured to receive the pose data and infer whether the exercise pose is in a correct posture or not (paragraphs [0038]-[0043]); and
a coaching information output unit configured to output exercise coaching information on the basis of an inference result of the exercise pose analysis unit (paragraphs [0056]-[0058]).
Namboordiri lacks specifically disclosing, however, Kissos discloses wherein the exercise pose analysis unit comprises an artificial intelligence model configured to receive the pose data and infer whether the exercise pose is in the correct posture or not, wherein the artificial intelligence model is generated by learning with correct posture learning data and at least two or more types of incorrect posture learning data, and wherein the artificial intelligence model is configured to infer the exercise pose as any one of the correct posture and the at least two or more types of incorrect postures (column 5, lines 29-47; column 7, lines 20-56). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the use of the method of AI to calculate incorrect poses described in Kissos in the system of Namboodiri in order to create a system which uses less memory.
Concerning claim 2, Namboordiri discloses wherein the exercise pose extraction unit extracts, as the exercise pose, a plurality of key points preset for the exercising object in the exercise image (paragraphs [0031]-[0036]).
Concerning claim 3, Namboordiri discloses wherein the key points comprises at least two or more positions of both eyes, both ears, the nose, the neck, hips, and a plurality of joints (paragraphs [0031]-[0036]).
Concerning claim 4, Namboordiri discloses wherein the exercise pose extraction unit extracts the key points in units of a predetermined number of frames from the exercise image of predetermined one cycle, and generates the pose data by converting the key points for one cycle into time-series coordinate data (paragraphs [0031], [0063], [0074]).
Concerning claim 7, Namboordiri discloses wherein the exercise pose analysis unit further comprises a data pre-processing unit configured to pre-process the pose data obtained from the exercise pose extraction unit so as to correspond to a format of input data of the artificial intelligence model (paragraphs [0038]-[0043]).
Concerning claim 8, Namboordiri discloses wherein, in a case where there exists a key point missing from the pose data, the data pre-processing unit restores pose data for the corresponding key point through a pre-registered interpolation technique (paragraphs [0038]-[0043]).
Concerning claim 9, Namboordiri discloses wherein the data pre- processing unit receives an input of exercise type information of a current exercise of the exercising object, extracts pose data for the key points according to the exercise type information from the pose data, and transmits the extracted pose data as the input data of the artificial intelligence model (paragraphs [0038]-[0043]).
Concerning claim 10, Namboordiri discloses wherein the exercise pose analysis unit further comprises an inference result generation unit configured to generate, as the exercise coaching information, correction information for posture correction in a case where the artificial intelligence model infers that the exercise pose is the incorrect posture (paragraphs [0056]-[0058]).
Claim(s) 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Namboodiri, Kissos, and further in view of US Publication No. 2012/0271143 A1 to Aragones et al. (hereinafter “Aragones”).
Concerning claim 11, Namboordiri lacks specifically disclosing, however, Aragones discloses wherein the coaching information output unit comprises: an image display unit configured to display an image toward a front thereof; and a GUI management unit configured to display the exercise coaching information generated by the inference result generation unit on the image display unit (Figs. 10 A and B, paragraphs [0085]-[0092]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the use of displaying the output to the user as disclosed by Aragones in the system of Namboodiri in order to provide a more visual training system, thereby improving users’ results.
Concerning claim 12, Namboordiri lacks specifically disclosing, however, Aragones discloses wherein the exercise coaching information comprises a correction image in which correction points, in the correct posture, corresponding to the respective key points are displayed, and the GUI management unit displays the correction image on the image display unit (Figs. 10 A and B, paragraphs [0085]-[0092]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the use of displaying the output to the user as disclosed by Aragones in the system of Namboodiri in order to provide a more visual training system, thereby improving users’ results.
Concerning claim 13, Namboordiri lacks specifically disclosing, however, Aragones discloses wherein the GUI management unit displays an object image for the exercising object photographed by the image capturing unit on the image display unit, and overlaps and displays the correction points on the exercising object in the object image (Figs. 10 A and B, paragraphs [0085]-[0092]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the use of displaying the output to the user as disclosed by Aragones in the system of Namboodiri in order to provide a more visual training system, thereby improving users’ results.
Concerning claim 14, Namboordiri discloses which are inferred by the artificial intelligence model (paragraphs [0038]-[0043]), however, lacks specifically disclosing, and Aragones discloses wherein the GUI management unit displays, on the image display unit, correction points corresponding to key points inferred as the correct posture and correction points corresponding to key points inferred as the incorrect posture, so as to be visually distinguished from each other (Figs. 10 A and B, paragraphs [0085]-[0092]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the use of displaying the output to the user as disclosed by Aragones in the system of Namboodiri in order to provide a more visual training system, thereby improving users’ results.
Concerning claim 15, Namboordiri lacks specifically disclosing, however, Aragones discloses wherein the data pre-processing unit restores pose data for the corresponding key point through one of a linear interpolation technique, a polynomial interpolation technique and a spline interpolation technique (paragraphs [0056]-[0061]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the use of displaying the output to the user as disclosed by Aragones in the system of Namboodiri in order to provide a more visual training system, thereby improving users’ results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/11/15 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection. Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea and involve a practical application. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – image capturing unit. The image capturing unit is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor implementing a step) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The additional element of using an image capturing unit amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4, and 7-15 have been considered but are moot because on the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is listed in the PTO-892.
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 MALINA D BLAISE whose telephone number is (571)270-3398. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thurs. 7:00 am - 5:00 pm (PT).
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, Xuan Thai can be reached at 571-272-7147. 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.
MALINA D. BLAISE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3715
/MALINA D. BLAISE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715