DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
The English translation of foreign patent document cite no. 6 (GB 2270004 A) on the IDS filed 12/19/22, filed 02/26/26, has been acknowledged.
The objections to the claims have been withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims, filed 02/26/26.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) due to the recitation of the limitations “gesture analysis algorithm” and “activity analysis algorithm” have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the Specification discloses the recited algorithms as a kind of AI algorithm, and further argues that the Specification discloses what the algorithms do (i.e., recognizes whether a user has correctly or incorrectly performed an exercise, and compiles activity performance data) (Remarks, filed 02/26/26, pp. 10-11 & 12). It is Applicant’s position that a person of ordinary skill in the art of artificial intelligence software would understand the algorithms, and that the input/output pairs and training details are beyond the scope of the present application (Remarks, filed 02/26/26, pp. 10-11 & 12).. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Specification fails to disclose the algorithms with sufficient detail such that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the recited functions are intended to be performed (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) (See MPEP 2161.01(I)(“Similarly, original claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed.”)). As noted, the Specification fails to disclose the AI algorithms in terms of input/output pairs and training details for each algorithm. It is further noted that the Specification does not specify the architecture of the algorithms (e.g., convolutional neural network (CNN), long short-term memory (LSTM), supper vector machine (SVM), random forest, decision tree, etc.). Accordingly, the claims lack written description and are indefinite, and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are maintained.
The rejections of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claim, filed 02/26/26.
The rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is moot as claim 11 has been canceled. However, a new rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been presented in light of the amendments to the claim, as discussed in detail below.
The rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claimed, filed 02/26/26.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-10 and 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the Specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites in part “a gesture analysis algorithm” and an “activity analysis algorithm”, wherein the Specification describes the recited algorithms merely as “AI algorithm[s]” (Specification, p. 13, ln. 19-25 & ln. 29-30). However, there is a lack of written description on the AI algorithms in terms of input/output pairs and training details for each algorithm. Accordingly, the claim lacks written description.
Claims 5, 7, and 14 are rejected for similar reasoning. Claims 6 and 15 are rejected by virtue of their dependencies on claims 5 and 14, respectively.
All dependent claims are rejected by virtue of their dependencies on claim 1.
Claim 1 further recites in part “analyzing the series of user interaction in relation to the plurality of performance metrics with the activity analysis algorithm in order to produce a plurality of benchmark data as the plurality of activity performance data through the control device”. However, the Specification does not disclose analyzing the series of user interaction signals in relation to the plurality of performance metrics with the activity analysis algorithm as claimed (see Specification, p. 15, ln. 8-11, “The series of user interaction signals, and the plurality of body motion data where applicable, are analyzed with the plurality of performance metrics in order to produce a plurality of benchmark data as the plurality of activity performance data through the control device.”). Accordingly, the claim lacks written description.
All dependent claims are rejected by virtue of their dependencies on claim 1.
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 1-10 and 12-17 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 in part “a gesture analysis algorithm” and an “activity analysis algorithm”, wherein there is a lack of written description for the algorithms illustrated above by the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), thereby rendering the claim limitations indefinite.
Claims 5, 7, and 14 are rejected for similar reasoning. Claims 6 and 15 are rejected by virtue of their dependencies on claims 5 and 14, respectively.
All dependent claims are rejected by virtue of their dependencies on claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Pub. 2022/0022778 A1 – This reference teaches creating a personalized fitness plan based in part on received user baseline measurement data.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALYSSA N BRANDLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4280. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30am-5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Dmitry Suhol, can be reached at (571)272-4430. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALYSSA N BRANDLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/DMITRY SUHOL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715