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
Applicant has amended the claims (Remarks 6-9 filed 8/8/2025) to recite extra-solution limitations of Claims 2-4 of number of times of set movements, displaying non-functional descriptive matter, and generating of the guide comprised of non-functional descriptive matter. Thus, the rejection of the claims under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
Applicant argues that the amended claims overcome Maser and Wu (Remarks 9-11). Examiner disagrees. Generally, it is not persuasive to argue the references individually when the rejection is based on the combination of references. For example, to allege that Maser does not disclose reverse-playing of his exercise video and that Wu’s reverse playing does not disclose a specific use to generate an exercise video merely is misdirection when Examiner has stated that he is relying on Wu to teach reverse playing and Maser to disclose generating an exercise video and the combination of Maser and Wu to demonstrate why one of skill in the art would modify the exercise video of Maser to incorporate reverse-play.
As to the limitations formerly from Claim 2, Applicant argues by merely reciting the limitation and alleging that Maser lacks disclosing the limitation. It would be more persuasive to address the citations provided by Examiner and address both the structural aspects of the limitations and then the non-functional descriptive matter issues.
As to the limitations formerly from Claim 3, Applicant argues Wu’s boomerang feature does not disclose the specific use of generating an exercise video. This is not persuasive as Examiner does not rely on Wu to teach generating the exercise video. Nor does Examiner specifically rely on Wu’s looping.
As to the limitations for former Claim 4, Applicant has not addressed why [0027] of Maser fails to disclose a number of times of set movements and that number being more than two. Instead, it is alleged that Wu does not disclose this feature. For the above reasons the rejections are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
7. 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.
8. Claims 1, 5-7, 10-11, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
9. Step 1
Claims 1-10 are directed to a method meeting the requirements for Step 1.
Claims 11-17 are directed to an apparatus/system meeting the requirements for Step 1.
10. Step 2A Prong 1
In independent Claim 1 (and similarly for Claim 11), reads as follows:
A method of providing an exercise video guide comprising a set movement as a repetition movement, the method comprising:
receiving a command to generate an exercise video guide comprising two or more times of set movements as a number of times of set movements, the number being an integer greater than or equal to 2 and
generating, by one or more processors, the exercise video guide comprising the two or more times of set movements, based on a reverse-replay of a section of an original video comprising one set movement, and
displaying, by the one or more processor, the exercise video guide on a display,
wherein the original video comprises: a preparation section showing a preparation movement; a first section showing a first movement; a second section showing a second movement opposite to the first movement; and a finishing section showing a finishing movement,
the generating of the exercise video guide comprises:
replaying the preparation section;
executing at least one of a first step of reverse-replaying the first section after replaying the first section and a second step of replaying the second section after reverse-replaying the second section correspondingly to the number of times of set movements; and
replaying the finishing section.
The above italicized step of “receiving a command to generate an exercise video comprising movements” is drafted at such a high level of generality that it encompasses an abstract mental process that can be performed within the human mind (“a claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind”, See Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Thus, Claim 1, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations within the mind as an abstract mental process.
11. Step 2A Prong II
The recited claim fails to recite any elements that provide a practical application. As
stated in TLI, “[i]t is well-settled that recitation of concrete, tangible components alone is insufficient to confer patent eligibility to otherwise abstract data. The components must involve more than the performance of well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known in the industry.” (Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359).
The claim recites “generating the exercise video guide comprising the two or more times of set movements, based on a reverse-replay of a section of an original video comprising one set movement” followed by also “generating of the exercise video comprises ….replaying….executing” limitations are deemed to be generic recitations of a computing environment and akin to lacking an improvement to the functioning of a computer (addressed below). Applicant's specification does not disclose new ways to store video data, new ways to parse video data, or new ways to deliver video data but discloses only known technologies used in their customary ways. Specifically, Examiner finds in the specification, known Internet, Apps, and APIs [0054]; known exercise devices [0055]; known user terminals [0056]; known administrator terminals [0057]; known sensors [0063, 0078, 0082, 0157]; known networks [0064, 0071]; known user interfaces [0066]; known output devices [0067]; known mirror displays [0069]; known displays [0074]; known video markers/keypoints [0095, 0158]; known human posture recognition technology [0160]; known similarity rate calculation [0165]; known general electronic devices [0194]; known program commands executable through various computer means/computer software [0195]; and known memory [0195, 0196]. Thus, the elements provide a generic environment to carry out the abstract idea of a video containing known presentation of elements.
As in Electric Power, the claims did not require a new source or type of information, or new techniques for analyzing it.” (See, e.g., '710 patent, col. 8, lines 51-62 (referring to existing phasor data sources); J.A. 6969-71 (describing workings and history of phasor data use); Electric Power Group Br. at 21-22; Reply Br. at 5 (new algorithms not claimed). “As a result, they do not require an arguably inventive set of components or methods, such as measurement devices or techniques, that would generate new data. They do not invoke any assertedly inventive programming. Merely requiring the selection and manipulation of information — to provide a "humanly comprehensible" amount of information useful for users”, (Reply Br. at 6; Electric Power Group Br. at 14-15), so by itself did not transform the abstract processes of information collection and analysis.
According to Applicant’s specification, a processor may separate the original video into a plurality of sections using markers (Spec. 0095). This bears similarity to the claim at issue in In re TLI Communications LLC, 823 F.3d 607 (Fed. Cir. 2016} where the Federal Circuit found that, unlike Enfish, the inventor here was not faced with a technological problem with a technical solution. Although the invention was related to digital images taken and classified on a smartphone, and then automatically stored according to the classification information, the court felt this was an administrative as opposed to technical issue. Akin to Applicant’s markers, the invention in TLI teaches manually or automatically assigning “classification data,” such as a date or timestamp, or digital images and sending those images to a server. The server then extracts the classification data and stores the digital images, “taking into consideration the classification information.” Col. 2 ll. 35-45. Hence, addressing an administrative not a technical issue.
Applicant’s claim and disclosure appear to have aspects of both the collecting data as in Electric Power and the organizing data in TLI. The Court stated in Broadband ITV, Inc. Amazon.com, INC., 113 F.4th1359 (2024) “[i]n Electric Power, we found patent ineligible certain claims for "monitoring of an electric power grid by collecting data from multiple data sources, analyzing the data, and displaying the results." Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In TLI, we found patent ineligible claims for "classifying and storing digital images in an organized manner" based on "`classification data,' such as a date or timestamp." In re TLI Commc'ns LLC Pat. Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 609-610 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Here, the '026 patent family claims are directed to receiving and displaying information like Electric Power Group and organizing information based on classification information like TLI. Thus, Claim 1 is deemed to be extra-solution data processing and classification activity.
As to the processor and memory of Claim 11, even when these limitations are viewed in combination with the other claim limitation, the additional elements do no more than achieve the result merely using computer components as tools. While this type of automation is an improvement in a general sense as opposed to performance manually, there is no change to the computer and other technology that are recited in the claim as automating the abstract ideas, and thus Claim 11 cannot improve computer functionality or other technology. Thus, Claims 1 and 11 lack the eligibility requirements of Step 2 Prong II.
12. Step 2B
According to the 2019 PEG, in addition to the considerations discussed in Step 2A, an additional consideration indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) is the addition of a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field (MPEP 2106.05(d)). Conversely, an additional consideration not indicative of an inventive concept is simply appending well-understood, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo, April 20, 2018). Thus, the additional elements evaluated under Step 2A are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
Claims 1 and 11 recite the extra-solution activity of generating the exercise video guide comprising the two or more times of set movements, based on a reverse-replay of a section of an original video comprising one set movement, replaying the preparation section; executing at least one of a first step of reverse-replaying the first section after replaying the first section and a second step of replaying the second section after reverse-replaying the second section correspondingly to the number of times of set movements; and replaying the finishing section. The content of the exercise video are well-known data processing akin to a form of arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information and determining a price (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(vi))). Thus, Claims 1 and 11 are ineligible.
13. Dependent Claims
Claims 5-7, 10, 17, and 18 inherit the same abstract idea as Claim 1.
Claims 15, and 19 inherit the same abstract idea as Claim 11.
In Reference to Claims 5-7, 10, 15, and 17
Claims 5-7 and 15 recite extra-solution activity. Claim 10 is well-known displaying. Claim 17 recites generic and well-known and conventionally employed processors, memory, and programs creating a generic computing environment. Thus, Claims 5-7, 10, 15, and 17 are rejected.
Note - Claims 18 and 19 provide a practical application
These claims provide a practical application that when fully incorporated into Claims 1 and 11, respectively. While the detecting by a sensor is extra-solution data gathering the controlling the video display playback speed based on a movement speed based on a similarity rate between the user’s posture and a references posture imposes meaningful limits on the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
14. 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 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.
15. 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.
16. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
17. Claim 1, 5-7, 11, 15, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2014/0270711 to Maser in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2021/0204030 to Wu.
In Reference to Claims 1, 11, and 17
Maser discloses generating a custom exercise video guide (Titl., [0039] guide is construed as non-functional descriptive matter as the claimed video generated is not affected whether or not it is referred to as a guide), comprising:
a memory {computer-readable medium} storing an original video comprising one set movement as a repetition movement (Fig. 17 memory 72 embody a computer readable medium [0265] that embodies a computer-readable medium [0265], see also original source camera for each edit [0215], and a set of exercise repetitions [0215]); and
a processor configured to read out the original video and generate the exercise video (Fig. 17 central processor 73), the method comprising:
receiving a command to generate an exercise video {guide) comprising two or more times of set movements as a number of times of set movements, the number being an integer greater than or equal to 2, (Fig. 1 130 Select Available Exercise Components, set movements are “exercise components” [0042], request from a user [0044], two or more times e.g., 25 push-ups [0045], see also “The number of reps for a component can be organized into a number of sets (e.g., 2 sets of 25 pushups) [0027]); and
generating, by a processor, the exercise video {guide} comprising the two or more times of set movements, based on a section of an original video comprising one set movement (Fig. 1 150 Generate customized exercise video for session, customized video [0045], 25 push-ups, number of sets [0027], number of reps [0046]), and
displaying, by the one or more processor, the exercise video guide on a display (embodiments can provide a display [0068, 0136], see also Maser discloses displaying the exercise video {guide} ([0068, 0135, 0166, 0180]),
wherein the original video comprises: a preparation section showing a preparation movement; a first section showing a first movement; a second section showing a second movement opposite to the first movement; and a finishing section showing a finishing movement (Examiner construes the claim of preparation and finishing movements as non-functional descriptive matter because what is shown does not have any consequent in the balance of the claim e.g., a preparation movement or a finishing movement as whether or not there is either does not impart any different functionality to the claim. Here, preparation and finishing movements are mere labels and carry no patentable weight. What remains is that there are third and fourth sections. Maser discloses third and fourth sections where he discloses that an exercise video is comprised of multiple video clips ([0180]). Aside from the composition of the clips being construed as non-functional, Maser discloses that exercise videos can be orchestrated as a template of clips where the video can include warm-ups {preparatory} and cooldowns (finishing) movements ([0031]). Maser discloses his customized videos are based on extractions from the original recording session video ([0033, 0198, 0214])], the original, comprises a first {second} sections showing a first {second} movements (“move” corresponding to an individual exercise [0027] as part of a set of movements, the content is further organized into chapters {sections} with elements within section where “The content may be time-coded, using a feature such as chapter marking, to categorize or denote what is depicted. For example, a chapter marker (decision point) may be inserted at the beginning of the content to denote an introduction to the exercise by the Model. Another chapter marker may be inserted at the transition point from the introductory segment to the actual exercise. Additional chapter markers may be inserted at the beginning of each repetition of the exercise that follow the first one. And a chapter marker may be inserted at the end of the last exercise repetition, to denote a transition point from the exercise to an "outro" segment depicting the Model finishing the exercise.” [0200]).
Examiner construes any claim reciting what movement is shown as non-functional descriptive matter because what is shown does not have any consequent in the balance of the claim e.g., an exercise of a pull-up has no effect of impart any different functionality to the claim than a push-up. What remains is that there is a first and a second section.
Despite being non-functional, Maser is silent as to a second section showing a second movement opposite to the first movement. See belong for a reverse-play of Wu as a reverse movement. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to also incorporate the exercise as a second section using an opposing move of Maser, since it has been held that making parts reversible involves only routine skill in the art. (See In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955) (Prior art disclosed a clock fixed to the stationary steering wheel column of an automobile while the gear for winding the clock moves with steering wheel; mere reversal of such movement, so the clock moves with wheel, was held to be an obvious modification.), and
the generating of the exercise video guide comprises replaying the preparation section, replaying the first, second, and finishing sections (Maser discloses that a move can be repeated [0027], see also exercise video is comprised of multiple video clips ([0180]).
Maser discloses the invention substantially as claimed but is silent as to video clips of reverse-replay after replaying the first section and executing at least one of a first {second} step of reverse-replaying the first section which corresponds to the number of times of set movements of Maser. Examiner construes based on a reverse-replay of a section of an original video comprising one set movement as generating a set of movements which will play in reverse as the boomerang feature of Wu.
One of skill in the art would be aware of the methods for media playback (Titl.) of Wu. According to Wu, “[r]eady access to the Internet has revolutionized how people gather information and learn. The modern consumer is more likely to self-educate with online videos, than consult face-to-face with professionals. As but one such example, many people go online to learn exercises and workouts rather than paying for a personal trainer. Unfortunately, certain types of exercises are difficult to learn. Nuances such as e.g., timing, coordination, and movement may require significant skill to execute properly. Without the assistance of a personal trainer to correct poor form, an athlete may develop bad habits and suffer from injury and/or reduced performance progression.” ([0003-0004]). Wu addresses this by providing instructional media playback according to playback navigation may include a variety of different capabilities. Common examples of playback navigation may include e.g., play, pause, stop, start over, skip to next media, fast forward, reverse, skip ahead (by time increment or cue point), skip back (by time increment or cue point), etc. Other common playback options may include without limitation, play and stop, “boomerang” (play forward and reverse play), loop play, play in sequence (playlist), playlist repeat, and/or any other variation thereof. Additionally, playback options may include support for e.g., different speeds (e.g., 4×, 2×, 1×, ½×, ¼×, etc.), zoom in, zoom out, etc.” ([0122]). Examiner interprets the known boomerang feature of Wu to be a reverse play feature.
The Supreme Court in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; and
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Here, it would require only routine skill in the art to modify the generated exercise video for a session of Maser with the incorporation of the boomerang feature of Wu to achieve the predictable result of making certain types of exercises less difficult to learn and address nuances such as e.g., timing, coordination, and movement to mitigate development of bad habits, potential injury, and/or reduced performance progression.
For a second step of replaying the second section after reverse-replaying the second section, Maser discloses that a move can be repeated [0027]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to play any number of video clip so arranged, because it has been held that mere duplication {iteration} of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a “web” which lies in the joint, and a plurality of “ribs” projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced) (emphasis added). The Courts have held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to be indicia of obviousness.
In Reference to Claims 5-6 and 15
Examiner construes wherein a sum of repetition times of the first step and the second step is less than {one time less than} the number of times of set movements as a matter of design choice as Applicant has not disclosed that the sum serves any particular purpose of solves any specific problem and the number of moves, reps, and sets in a session of Maser would work equally as well.
In Reference to Claim 7
Examiner construes a third step of sequentially replaying the first section and the second section as a mere rearrangement of parts or a change in sequence to create a third part. It has been shown that Maser in view of Wu teaches of first and second sections and of respective reverse plays. It is not explicit in Maser of a third step of sequentially replaying the first section and the second. First, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to rearrange parts of the exercise videos of Mayes in view of Wu, since it has been held that mere relocation of an element would not have modified the operation of the device. (In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.) Second, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize a change in sequence as an equivalent to the third step of Applicant in the absence of new or unexpected results. (In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930) (Selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious).
18. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maser, Wu further in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2013/0286047 to Katano.
Maser discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, the reference does not explicitly disclose the display is a mirror display.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be aware of the mirror system and control method of Katano. According to Katano (Fig. 2) there is a system (190) which has a mirror (110) that reflects incident light from object facing on front surface side to present reflected image, and transmits incident light from rear surface. Display unit (120) generates presentation image to be superimposed on reflected image. (Abstr.). Katano invents this mirror display “for displaying image or video on mirror surface, for rehabilitation system for recovering functions of human body and system for determining quality of physical exercises for maintaining health.” ([0005]).
Here, it would require only routine skill in the art to modify the displaying of the exercise video of Maser with the mirror display of Katano to achieve the predictable result of displaying video on a mirror surface to rehabilitation and physical exercise. The Courts have held that the use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way to be indicia of obviousness.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art does not recite, in combination with the other claim limitations: detecting a user’s posture through a sensor; continuing to display the exercise video guide while adjusting a playback speed of the exercise video guide in proportion to a movement speed of the user, based on a similarity rate between the detected user’s posture and a reference posture in the exercise video guide being greater than or equal to a reference value; and
stopping the display of the exercise video guide, based on the similarity rate being less than the reference value, or a sensor configured to detect a user’s posture, wherein the one or more processor is further configured to continue to display the exercise video guide while adjusting a playback speed of the exercise video guide in proportion to a movement speed of the user, based on a similarity rate between the detected user’s posture and a reference posture in the exercise video guide being greater than or equal to a reference value and stop the display of the exercise video guide, based on the similarity rate being less than the reference value.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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.
22. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Paul A. D’Agostino whose telephone number is (571) 270-1992.
23. 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.
24. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Lewis can be reached on (571) 272-7673. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-2992.
/PAUL A D'AGOSTINO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715