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 .
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 1-20 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.
Claim 1 is directed to a “method” (i.e., a process), claim 11 is directed to a “computing device” (i.e., a machine), and claim 20 is directed to a “non-transitory storage medium” (i.e., a machine), hence the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). In other words, Step 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Claims 1, 11, and 20 are drawn to an abstract idea of generating a video-based training program which requires the following limitations:
Per Claim 1:
“A method of generating a video-based training program for transmission to one or more client computing devices, wherein values of the training program are set at a training specialist computing device corresponding to a training specialist profile data structure related to a plurality of client profile data structures, including one or more client profile data structures corresponding to the one or more client computing devices, managed at the training specialist computing device, comprising: receiving and storing in memory a plurality of videos from a training specialist computing device, wherein each of the plurality of videos includes a video identifier; receiving training program values, from the training specialist computing device, including a selection of at least one identifier of the one or more client computing devices that are to receive the video-based training program, the training program values including one or more identifiers of one or more videos of the plurality of videos; generating a training program from the training program values including permissions to access the one or more videos of the plurality of videos corresponding to the one or more identifiers; retrieving one or more contact values stored in the one or more profile data structures corresponding to the at least one identifier; and transmitting the training program to the one or more client computing devices, whereby the one or more client computing devices can access the one more videos of the training program through the permissions.”
Per Claim 11:
“A computing device configured to generate a video-based training program for transmission to one or more client computing devices, wherein values of the training program are set at a training specialist computing device corresponding to a training specialist profile data structure related to a plurality of client profile data structures, including one or more client profile data structures corresponding to the one or more client computing devices, managed at the training specialist computing device, the computing device comprising: a processor; memory; program code stored in the memory that, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to: receive and store a plurality of videos from a training specialist computing device, wherein each of the plurality of videos includes a video identifier; receive training program values, from the training specialist computing device, including a selection of at least one identifier of the one or more client computing devices that are to receive the video-based training program, the training program values including one or more identifiers of one or more videos of the plurality of videos; generate a training program from the training program values including permissions to access the one or more videos of the plurality of videos corresponding to the one or more identifiers; retrieve one or more contact values stored in the one or more profile data structures corresponding to the at least one identifier; and transmit the training program to the one or more client computing devices, whereby the one or more client computing devices can access the one more videos of the training program through the permissions.”
Per Claim 20:
“A non-transitory storage medium comprising program code that, when executed by a processor, causes the processor to: receive and store a plurality of videos from a training specialist computing device, wherein each of the plurality of videos includes a video identifier; receive training program values, from the training specialist computing device, including a selection of at least one identifier of the one or more client computing devices that are to receive the video-based training program, the training program values including one or more identifiers of one or more videos of the plurality of videos; generate a training program from the training program values including permissions to access the one or more videos of the plurality of videos corresponding to the one or more identifiers; retrieve one or more contact values stored in the one or more profile data structures corresponding to the at least one identifier; and transmit the training program to the one or more client computing devices, whereby the one or more client computing devices can access the one more videos of the training program through the permissions.”
These aforementioned limitations of claims 1, 13, and 17 (receiving a plurality of videos, receiving training program values, and creating a training program by utilizing the aforementioned training program values and videos), are drawn to an abstract idea of generating a video-based training program, which fall under the abstract grouping “Mental processes” in the form of concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Furthermore, the limitations of claims 1, 11, and 20 describe a process of data gathering (i.e., receiving videos and training program values), analysis (i.e., generating a training program using the received data), and display (i.e., transmitting the training program to clients), which is partially analogous to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection analysis” (i.e., Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Hence, these limitations are akin to an abstract idea which has been identified among non-limiting examples to be an abstract idea. In other words, Step 2A, Prong 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Furthermore, the Applicant’s claimed elements of a “computing devices”, ”processor”, “memory”, and “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” are merely claimed to generally link the use of a judicial exception (e.g., pre-solution activity of data gathering and post-solution activity of presenting data) to (1) a particular technological environment or (2) field of use, per MPEP §2106.05(h); and are applying the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, per MPEP §2106.05(f). In other words, the claimed abstract idea, generating a video-based training program, is not providing a practical application, thus Step 2A, Prong 2 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
Furthermore, the claimed “computing devices” (described in para. [0054] and [0056]), ”processor” (described in para. [0050]), “memory” (described in para. [0051]), and “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” (described in para [0051]) are reasonably interpreted as generic hardware and provide no details of anything beyond its use as ubiquitous standard equipment. Therefore, Step 2B, of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
Claims 2-10, and 12-12 are dependent from independent claims 1 and 11 respectively, and include all the limitations of their respective independent claim. Therefore, the dependent claims recite the same abstract idea. The limitation of the dependent claims fails to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For Example:
The limitations of claims 2-6 and 9 clarify the data that comprises various variables and data structures such as the video identifier, contact values, video labels, permissions, and video metadata. As such, these claims merely further recite the type of data included in the method and are therefore insignificant extra-solution activity. The limitations fail to provide any teaching that integrates the judicial exceptions into a practical application or amounts to significantly more than a judicial exception. For this reason, the analysis performed on the independent claims is also applicable on these claims.
The limitations of claim 7-8 simply denote additional input that may be used to modify a client’s permission value. As such, these claims merely recite the types of that can be input into the system. These limitations fail to provide any teaching that integrates the judicial exceptions into a practical application or amounts to significantly more than a judicial exception. For this reason, the analysis performed on the independent claims is also applicable on these claims.
Independent claims 1, 11, and 20 do not provide a practical application and are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Additionally, dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19 recite an abstract idea without significantly more and are not drawn to eligible subject matter. Therefore, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject-matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 2, 5-7, 10-12, 15, 16, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall (Document ID US 20140087341 A1; 2014-03-27) in view of Fulford et al. (Document ID US 20180232352 A1; 2018-08-16).
Regarding claim 1, Hall teaches:
A method of generating a video-based training program for transmission to one or more client computing devices, wherein values of the training program are set at a training specialist computing device corresponding to a training specialist profile data structure related to a plurality of client profile data structures, including one or more client profile data structures corresponding to the one or more client computing devices, managed at the training specialist computing device (Para. [0094]-[0096] and para. [0101], show that a third party interaction module 16, i.e. a training specialist profile data structure and device, may be utilized by a trainer to both prescribe files to a particular users, i.e. training program values associated with a various client data structures, as well as to view the progress and activity of select users, i.e. manage clients), comprising: receiving and storing in memory a plurality of videos from a training specialist computing device (Para. [0018], shows that there are a plurality of video instruction files stored in a database; Para. [0089], further shows that there may be a specialist video library with videos that have been uploaded from expert trainers, i.e. videos uploaded from a training specialist computing device), wherein each of the plurality of videos includes a video identifier (Para. [0051], shows that each video has associated metadata such that video files can be sorted and queried, i.e. video identifiers); receiving training program values, from the training specialist computing device, including a selection of at least one identifier of the one or more client computing devices that are to receive the video-based training program, the training program values including one or more identifiers of one or more videos of the plurality of videos (Para. [0062]-[0064], show that a user can generate a training program to share with other users by selecting plurality of videos, i.e. training program values that include identifiers of the plurality of videos, from the video instruction module; Para. [0019] and [0089], further show that expert trainers can prescribe content to specific users or a plurality of user subscribers, i.e. identifiers of the client devices that are to receive the video-based training program); retrieving one or more contact values stored in the one or more profile data structures corresponding to the at least one identifier; and transmitting the training program to the one or more client computing devices (Para. [0048], [0094], and [0099], show that a trainer can select a specific user to send information to, i.e. transmitting the training program to a client computing device using a contact value),
Hall fails to explicitly teach:
generating a training program from the training program values including permissions to access the one or more videos of the plurality of videos corresponding to the one or more identifiers; and whereby the one or more client computing devices can access the one more videos of the training program through the permissions.
Fulford et al. teaches:
generating a training program from the training program values including permissions to access the one or more videos of the plurality of videos corresponding to the one or more identifiers; and whereby the one or more client computing devices can access the one more videos of the training program through the permissions (Para. [0136], [0146], and [0278], shows that the author of a document or content may restrict permissions of users who may view their document the distribution to their documents to certain users; Para. [0125] and [0129], further show that content may comprise multiple video files).
It would be obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for someone of ordinary skill to apply the known techniques of Fulford et al., regarding the utilization of account permissions to access digital content, to the similar device of Hall, an exercise training system that allows trainers to upload instructional exercise content and send training advice to specific users, to yield the predictable result of ensuring only the intended users have access to specific content. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motived to incorporate the known techniques of Fulford et al. with the similar device of Hall as the methodology of Fulford et al. would allow a trainer to exclusively upload content for certain subscribed users as either a means of better tailoring content to trainees with specific goals or a means of only providing content to trainees subscribed to that particular trainer.
Regarding claim 2, Hall teaches:
The method as defined in claim 1, wherein the video identifier includes a label indicative of content of the video (Para. [0051], shows that metadata associated with the body part exercised, i.e. a label indicative of content of the video, is generated and stored with each video; Para. [0055], further shows that the “body region exercised” metadata is denoted, i.e. identified, at video upload either automatically by the system or by user input).
Regarding claim 5, Hall teaches:
The method as defined in claim 1, wherein the received videos are analyzed to identify anatomical content found in the videos, and one or more labels identifying the anatomical content are generated and stored with the received videos (Para. [0051], shows that metadata, i.e. a label, associated with the body part exercised, i.e. anatomical content, is generated and stored with each video; Para. [0055], further shows that the “body region exercised” metadata is denoted, i.e. identified, at video upload either automatically by the system or by user input).
Regarding claim 6, Fulford et al. teaches
The method as defined in claim 1, wherein the permissions include passwords (Para. [0278], shows that user with a certain password may be able to access a piece of content).
Regarding claim 7, Fulford et al. teaches:
The method as defined in claim 1, further comprising: receiving from the training specialist computing device input to disable access of one of the one or more client computing devices to the training program; and modifying a permission value of the client profile data structure corresponding to the one or more client computing devices, preventing access to the training program (Para. [0278], shows that the author can restrict the access, i.e. disable access of one or more client computing devices, of certain users to certain content by modifying their permissions, i.e. modifying a permission value of the client profile data structure).
Regarding claim 10, Hall teaches:
The method as defined in claim 1, further comprising generating a list of descriptors for the received plurality of videos (Para. [0051], show that the pre-recorded videos may comprise metadata that describe the videos contents, i.e. a list of descriptors), the list specific to the training specialist profile data structure related to the training specialist computing device that transmitted the plurality of videos (Para. [0089], further shows that expert trainers may have access to their own set of videos), wherein the list is transmitted to the training specialist computing device for enabling a selection of the one or more videos, the one or more identifiers of the training program values determined from the selection (Para. [0059]-[0064] and fig. 2, show that the user, and by extension the user’s device, has access to a list of videos which may be selected and combined together to create an exercise program, i.e. identifiers of the training program values being determined by the selection).
Regarding claims 11 and 20, they are mirrored claims to claim 1 and are rejected in like manner.
Regarding claims 12, 15, 16, and 19, they are mirrored claims to claims 2, 5, 7, and 10 respectively and are rejected in like manner.
Claims 3, 4, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall (Document ID US 20140087341 A1; 2014-03-27) in view of Fulford et al. (Document ID US 20180232352 A1; 2018-08-16) and in further view of Chu et al. (Document ID US 20130216990 A1; 2013-08-22).
Regarding claim 3, Hall in view of Fulford et al. fails to explicitly teach:
The method as defined in claim 1, wherein the one or more contact values include one or more email addresses.
Chu et al. teaches:
The method as defined in claim 1, wherein the one or more contact values include one or more email addresses (Para. [0026], shows the association of an email with a user profile as a method of communication, i.e. a contact value).
It would be obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for someone of ordinary skill to apply the known techniques of Chu et al., regarding the utilization of email and telephone numbers to contact certain users, to the similar device of Hall, an exercise training system that allows trainers to upload instructional exercise content and send training advice to specific users, to yield the predictable result of providing alternate means of contacting a user. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motived to incorporate the known techniques of Chu et al. with the similar device of Hall as the methodology of Chu et al. would provide a trainer with additional methods of contacting a user with advice as well as additional method of providing a user with new content.
Regarding claim 4, Hall in view of Fulford et al. fails to explicitly teach:
The method as defined in claim 1, wherein the one or more contact values include one or more telephone numbers.
Chu et al. teaches:
The method as defined in claim 1, wherein the one or more contact values include one or more telephone numbers (Para. [0026], shows the association of a phone number with a user profile as a method of communication, i.e. a contact value).
Regarding claims 13 and 14 they are mirrored claims to claims 3 and 4 respectively and are rejected in like manner.
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall (Document ID US 20140087341 A1; 2014-03-27) in view of Fulford et al. (Document ID US 20180232352 A1; 2018-08-16) and in further view of Pan et al. (Document ID US 20190355269 A1; 2019-11-21).
Regarding claim 8, Hall in view of Fulford et al. fails to explicitly teach:
The method of claim 7, wherein the modifying of the permission value corresponds to a deactivation of a client profile associated with the client profile data structure.
Pan et al. teaches:
The method of claim 7, wherein the modifying of the permission value corresponds to a deactivation of a client profile associated with the client profile data structure (Para. [0075], shows the ability to remove both a user’s permissions, i.e. modification of permission values, as well as the user’s account, i.e. deactivation of a client profile).
It would be obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for someone of ordinary skill to apply the known techniques of Pan et al., regarding the utilization of account control to remove user permissions as well as deactivate user accounts, to the similar device of Hall, an exercise training system that allows users to view instructional exercise content, to yield the predictable result of providing greater control over the user profiles. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motived to incorporate the known techniques of Pan et al. with the similar device of Hall as the methodology of Pan et al. would provide a trainer with the ability to remove trainees that may have dropped out of an exercise program or failed to comply with certain rules and regulations.
Regarding claim 17, it is a mirrored claim to claim 8 and is rejected in like manner.
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall (Document ID US 20140087341 A1; 2014-03-27) in view of Fulford et al. (Document ID US 20180232352 A1; 2018-08-16) and in further view of Krebs et al. (Document ID US 20070099161 A1; 2007-05-03).
Regarding claim 9, Hall in view of Fulford et al. fails to explicitly teach:
The method as defined in claim 1, wherein each of the one or more videos comprises metadata identifying the training specialist profile data structure related to the training specialist computing device that transmitted the video.
Krebs et al. teaches:
The method as defined in claim 1, wherein each of the one or more videos comprises metadata identifying the training specialist profile data structure related to the training specialist computing device that transmitted the video (Para. [0071], shows that the content uploaded by a user is associated with metadata that may include the developer responsible for the content, i.e. metadata identifying the training specialist profile data structure; Para. [0039], additionally shows that content may consist of video clips).
It would be obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for someone of ordinary skill to apply the known techniques of Krebs et al., regarding the utilization of content metadata containing the content’s author, to the similar device of Hall, an exercise training system that allows users to view instructional exercise content, to yield the predictable result of providing more data with which to make content queries. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motived to incorporate the known techniques of Krebs et al. with the similar device of Hall as the methodology of Krebs et al. would provide users an effective way of searching for training video from preferred trainers.
Regarding claim 18, it is a mirrored claim to claim 9 and is rejected in like manner.
Summary
No claim is allowed
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC § 103
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY JAMES BULTHUIS whose telephone number is (703)756-1060. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9:30-5:30.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at (571)270-1344. 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.
/A.J.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/KANG HU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715