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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/25/2023 was filed prior to the mailing date of the claims on 04/04/2024. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/05/2024 was filed after the mailing date of the claims on 04/04/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Claim 1 and its respective dependent claims 2-18, 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. In accordance with MPEP 2106.04, each of Claims 1-18 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions. Each of Claims 1-18 recites at least one step or instruction of detecting a plurality of distance values of at least one portion of the body of said user from said front part of said gymnastic machine, processing at least one first group of said plurality of distance values of at least one portion of the body of said user for calculating the distance of at least one portion of the chest of the user from said detecting device, or processing at least one second group of said plurality of distance values of at least one portion of the body of said user for calculating the distance of at least one portion of the right leg of the user from said detecting device, which are grouped as a mental process/mathematical equation in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) or a certain method of organizing human activity in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) or mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). Accordingly, Claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claim 1 recites: Method for detecting the distance of portions of the body of a user (U) from a front part (121) of a gymnastic machine (1) provided with a detecting device (123), arranged on said front part (121) and a logic unit control (C), operatively connected to said detecting device (123), during the execution of a gymnastic exercise on an exercise surface (111), said method comprising the following step (additional element):
- detecting (100), by means of said detecting device (123), a plurality of distance values of at least one portion of the body (O) of said user (U) from said front part (121) of said gymnastic machine (1) (observation or evaluation, which is a mental process);
said method being characterized in that it comprises the following further steps:
- processing (101), by means of said logic control unit (C), at least one first group of said plurality of distance values of at least one portion of the body (O) of said user (U), for calculating the distance of at least one portion of the chest (O1) of the user (U) from said detecting device (123) (mathematical equation or mental process);
- and/or processing (102), by means of said logic control unit (C), at least one second group of said plurality of distance values of at least one portion of the body (O) of said user (U), for calculating the distance of at least one portion of the right leg (O2) of the user (U) from said detecting device (123) (mathematical equation or mental process);
- and/or processing (103), by means of said logic control unit (C), at least one third group of said plurality of distance values of at least one portion of the body (O) of said user (U), for calculating the distance of at least one portion of the left leg (O3) of the user (U) from said detecting device (123) (mathematical equation or mental process).
Further, dependent Claims 2-18 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the claimed functions/steps are performed.
Accordingly, as indicated above, each of the above-identified claims recites an abstract idea as in MPEP 2106.04(a).
Step 2A, Prong 2
The above-identified abstract idea in each of independent Claim 1 (and its respective dependent Claims 2-18) is not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d) because the additional elements (identified above in independent Claim 1), either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use according to MPEP 2106.05(h) or represent insignificant extra-solution activity according to MPEP 2106.05(g). More specifically, the additional elements of: a detecting device and a logic unit control are generically recited computer elements in independent Claim 1 (and its respective dependent claims) which do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a). Nor do these above-identified additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine according to MPEP 2106.05(b), effect a transformation according to MPEP 2106.05(c), provide a particular treatment or prophylaxis according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e). Furthermore, the above-identified additional elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer in accordance with MPEP 2106.05(f). For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claim 1 (and its respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(d).
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(d) because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., mental process and certain method of organizing human activity) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer (e.g., a processor as claimed). In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer according to MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims according to MPEP 2106.05(a). That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claim 1 (and its respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d)(I).
Accordingly, independent Claim 1 (and its respective dependent claims) are each directed to an abstract idea according to MPEP 2106.04(d).
Step 2B
None of Claim 1 and its respective dependent claims 2-18, include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea in accordance with MPEP 2106.05 for at least the following reasons.
These claims require the additional elements of: a detecting device and a logic unit control.
The above-identified additional elements are generically claimed computer components which enable the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic functions of automating mental tasks. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) along with Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Per Applicant’s specification, in pages 8-9, “Said detecting device 123 is a distance sensor, configured to detect a distance value O of a portion of the user U from himself, during the training on the treadmill 1… In particular, the operation of said distance sensor 123 is based on the time-of-flight principle, or the measurement of the distance O between the sensor and the user U is based on the difference of time between the emission of a signal and its return to the sensor, after being reflected by the user U… The distance sensor 123 detects values and outputs a packet of values comprising several distance values O and/or any further values. In particular, in this embodiment, the distance sensor 123 outputs a packet of values in the form of a matrix M… With reference to figure 6, the method of detecting the distance O of portions of the body of a user U from a part of a gymnastic machine 1, object of the present invention, provides the execution of the following steps, by means of said logic control unit U. The method implements two different functions, the first is the calculation of the distance of at least a portion of the chest O1 of the user U from the distance sensor 123, and the second is the calculation of the distance of a portion of the right leg O2 and of the left leg O3 of the user U, from the distance sensor 123. The method is performed by said logic control unit C, with the values sent by said distance sensor 123 to said logic control unit C”. The specification of the claimed invention fails to provide any substantial structure or drawings that go beyond generic computer functions.
Accordingly, in light of Applicant’s specification, the claimed term, a detecting device and a logic unit control, are reasonably construed as a generic computing device. Like SAP America vs Investpic, LLC (Federal Circuit 2018), it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require no improved computer resources, just already available technology, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Furthermore, Applicant’s specification does not describe any special programming or algorithms required for a detecting device and a logic unit control. This lack of disclosure is acceptable under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) since this hardware performs non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the computer arts. By omitting any specialized programming or algorithms, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the computer industry or arts. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional elements because it describes these additional elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(2) and 2106.07(a)(III)). Adding hardware that performs “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible (TLI Communications along with MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)).
The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in independent Claim 1 amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f) along with Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(a) along with McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, per MPEP 2106.05(a), the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution.
For at least the above reasons, the method of independent Claim 1, respectively, is directed to applying an abstract idea as identified above on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself or providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field according to MPEP 2106.05(a), or (ii) providing meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e).
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements in independent Claim 1 (and its dependent claims) do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment according to MPEP 2106.05(h). When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment according to MPEP 2106.05(h). When viewed as whole, the above-identified additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e). Moreover, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity according to MPEP 2106.05(g). As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application as required by MPEP 2106.05.
Therefore, for at least the above reasons, none of the Claims 1-18 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, Claims 1-18 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim(s) 16 is further rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to nonstatutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim(s) recite software per se.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they cover both non-statutory subject matter and statutory subject matter. More specifically, Claim 17 is directed to computer readable media that cover signals per se, which are non-statutory subject matter.
The USPTO recognizes that applicants may have claims directed to computer readable media that cover signals per se, which the USPTO must reject under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering both non-statutory subject matter and statutory subject matter. In an effort to assist the patent community in overcoming a rejection or potential rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in this situation, the USPTO suggests the following approach. A claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by adding the limitation “non-transitory” to the claim. Cf. Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (suggesting that applicants add the limitation “non-human” to a claim covering a multi-cellular organism to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101). Such an amendment would typically not raise the issue of new matter, even when the specification is silent because the broadest reasonable interpretation relies on the ordinary and customary meaning that includes signals per se. The limited situations in which such an amendment could raise issues of new matter occur, for example, when the specification does not support a non-transitory embodiment because a signal per se is the only viable embodiment such that the amended claim is impermissibly broadened beyond the supporting disclosure. See, e.g., Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp., 134 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 1, “Method” should read –A method—
In claim 1, line 3, “logic unit control” should read –logic control unit--
In claim 1, line 9, “being characterized” should read –comprising—
In claim 1, lines 6, 11, and 15, “means of” should be deleted
In claims 1-15 and 18, each label, both numbered and letter labels, as well as the parenthesis around each label should deleted
In each of claims 2-15, line 1, “Method” should read –The method—
In claim 2, line 1, “wherein said processing step of (101)”, should read –wherein said processing step of at least one first group of said plurality of distance values--
In claim 2, lines 3 and 5, “means of” should be deleted
In claim 3, line 2, “means of” should be deleted
In claim 4, lines 5 and 14, “means of” should be deleted
In claim 5, lines 3 and 5, “means of” should be deleted
In claim 5, line 1, “wherein said processing step of (102)”, should read –wherein said processing step of at least one second group of said plurality of distance values --
In claim 6, lines 3 and 5, “means of” should be deleted
In claim 6, line 1, “wherein said processing step of (103)”, should read –wherein said processing step of at least one third group of said plurality of distance values--
In claim 8, line 9, “means of” should be deleted
In claim 9, lines 10-11, “means of” should be deleted
In claim 10, line 10, “means of” should be deleted
In claim 16, line 1, “Computer program” should read –A computer program—
In claim 17, line 1, "Computer readable storage medium", should read –A computer readable storage medium—
In claim 18, line 1, "Gymnastic machine" should read –The gymnastic machine--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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: found in the claim interpretation table below:
112(f) Claim Interpretation Table
Claim No.
Limitation
Invokes 112(f)?
Corresponding Structure
1
processing (101), by means of said logic control unit (C), at least one first group of said plurality of distance values of at least one portion of the body (O) of said user (U)
Yes, “logic control unit” does not recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function of “processing… at least one first group of said plurality of distance values of at least one portion of the body of said user”
Specification: None
1
detecting (100), by means of said detecting device (123), a plurality of distance values of at least one portion of the body (O) of said user (U) from said front part (121) of said gymnastic machine
Yes, “detecting device” does not recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function of “detecting… a plurality of distance values of at least one portion of the body of said user from said front part of said gymnastic machine”
Specification: “Said detecting device 123 is a distance sensor, configured to detect a distance value O of a portion of the user U from himself, during the training on the treadmill 1” [page 8]
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 § 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 1-18 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 limitation “processing (101), by means of said logic control unit (C), at least one first group of said plurality of distance values of at least one portion of the body (O) of said user (U)” of claim 1 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification fails to provide any structure that corresponds to the logic control unit disclosed in claim 1. At most, the specification discloses on page 7, “Furthermore, said logic control unit C comprises a memory unit M, in which parameters and operating data for the operation of the treadmill 1 are stored”. Although the memory unit provides some structure, the memory unit is not disclosed to process distance values, only to store parameters and operating data. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 18 recites “an exercise surface”, “a user”, “a logic control unit”, “a detecting device”, “a portion of the user”, and “a part of the gymnastic machine”. Claim 18 continues to recite in lines 12-13, “said logic control unit (C) being configured to carry out the method for detecting the distance of portions of the body of a user (U) from a part of a gymnastic machine (1) according to claim 1”. This claim is considered indefinite because it is unclear if the exercise surface of claim 18 is the same as or different from the exercise surface recited in claim 1, if the user of claim 18 is the same as or different from the user recited in claim 1, if the logic control unit of claim 18 is the same as or different from the logic control unit recited in claim 1, if the detecting device of claim 18 is the same as or different from the detecting device recited in claim 1, if the portion of the user of claim 18 is the same as or different from the at least one portion of the body of said user recited in claim 1, and if the part of the gymnastic machine of claim 18 is the same as or different from the front part of the gymnastic machine recited in claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7 and 12-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wilson (PG Patent Publication No. US20220111247A1).
Regarding claim 1, Wilson shows method for detecting the distance of portions of the body of a user (U) from a front part (121) of a gymnastic machine (1) (Wilson, “method for controlling the speed of an endless belt loop of a treadmill comprising: receiving images of a user of the treadmill taken by a pair of image sensors; rectifying the images based on a calibration of the image sensors; comparing the images to form a disparity map determining a distance of a user of the treadmill relative to the treadmill using the disparity map”, claim 11; The treadmill of Wilson shows the gymnastic machine of the claimed invention) provided with a detecting device (123), arranged on said front part (121) (Wilson, “a pair of image sensors 120 are mounted to an underside of the control panel 108… Referring to FIG. 2, a flow diagram depicting a process 200 for capturing images of a user and determining a distance of the user relative to the treadmill and providing that information to a control circuit to control a speed of the treadmill is illustrated”, paragraphs 0018-0020, see FIG. 1 below; The pair of image sensors of Wilson shows the detecting device of the claimed invention) and a logic unit control (C), operatively connected to said detecting device (123), during the execution of a gymnastic exercise on an exercise surface (111) (Wilson, “Referring to FIG. 2, a flow diagram depicting a process 200 for capturing images of a user and determining a distance of the user relative to the treadmill and providing that information to a control circuit to control a speed of the treadmill is illustrated”; The control circuit of Wilson shows the logic unit control of the claimed invention), said method comprising the following step: - detecting (100), by means of said detecting device (123), a plurality of distance values of at least one portion of the body (O) of said user (U) from said front part (121) of said gymnastic machine (1) (Wilson, “At step 202, images of a user of the treadmill are captured by a pair of image sensors, such as image sensors 120 of FIG. 1. Each image sensor 120 takes an image of the user (for example, the user's waist area) at substantially the same time (e.g., within a portion of a second to each other)”, paragraph 0020; In the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, each image of each of the pair of image sensors shows the plurality of distance values of the claimed invention); said method being characterized in that it comprises the following further steps: - processing (101), by means of said logic control unit (C), at least one first group of said plurality of distance values of at least one portion of the body (O) of said user (U), for calculating the distance of at least one portion of the chest (O1) of the user (U) from said detecting device (123) (Wilson, “the image sensors 120 could be mounted such that the sensors capture image(s) of other parts of the user, such as the user's chest, legs, midsection, etc… The two images are then adjusted at step 204 for distortion in a process sometimes referred to as rectifying or rectification. The adjustment step 204 is performed based on a previous calibration to account for image distortion caused by, for example, the lenses of the image sensors… Following the adjustment step 204, the adjusted/rectified images are then employed in a matching algorithm to create what is referred to as a disparity map (a map that shows the pixel distance of the shift between two images) at step 206. The disparity map can be used to determine the distance of the user of the treadmill relative to the treadmill, or relative, for example, to a predetermined position on an upper portion of the endless belt loop”, paragraphs 0018-0024; The images capturing images of the chest of the user of Wilson shows the at least one first group of said plurality of distance values); - and/or processing (102), by means of said logic control unit (C), at least one second group of said plurality of distance values of at least one portion of the body (O) of said user (U), for calculating the distance of at least one portion of the right leg (O2) of the user (U) from said detecting device (123) (Wilson, “the image sensors 120 could be mounted such that the sensors capture image(s) of other parts of the user, such as the user's chest, legs, midsection, etc… The two images are then adjusted at step 204 for distortion in a process sometimes referred to as rectifying or rectification. The adjustment step 204 is performed based on a previous calibration to account for image distortion caused by, for example, the lenses of the image sensors… Following the adjustment step 204, the adjusted/rectified images are then employed in a matching algorithm to create what is referred to as a disparity map (a map that shows the pixel distance of the shift between two images) at step 206. The disparity map can be used to determine the distance of the user of the treadmill relative to the treadmill, or relative, for example, to a predetermined position on an upper portion of the endless belt loop”, paragraphs 0018-0024; The images capturing images of the legs of the user of Wilson shows the at least one second group of said plurality of distance values as it is understood that the right leg of a user is part of the legs of the user); - and/or processing (103), by means of said logic control unit (C), at least one third group of said plurality of distance values of at least one portion of the body (O) of said user (U), for calculating the distance of at least one portion of the left leg (O3) of the user (U) from said detecting device (123) (Wilson, “the image sensors 120 could be mounted such that the sensors capture image(s) of other parts of the user, such as the user's chest, legs, midsection, etc… The two images are then adjusted at step 204 for distortion in a process sometimes referred to as rectifying or rectification. The adjustment step 204 is performed based on a previous calibration to account for image distortion caused by, for example, the lenses of the image sensors… Following the adjustment step 204, the adjusted/rectified images are then employed in a matching algorithm to create what is referred to as a disparity map (a map that shows the pixel distance of the shift between two images) at step 206. The disparity map can be used to determine the distance of the user of the treadmill relative to the treadmill, or relative, for example, to a predetermined position on an upper portion of the endless belt loop”, paragraphs 0018-0024; The images capturing images of the legs of the user of Wilson shows the at least one third group of said plurality of distance values as it is understood that the left leg of the user is part of the legs of the user).
PNG
media_image1.png
343
370
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wilson
Regarding claim 2, Wilson shows method according to claim 1, wherein said processing step (101) comprises the following sub-steps: - selecting (1011), by means of said logic control unit (C), said first group of said plurality of distance values of at least one portion of the body (O) (Wilson; “In the implementation shown in FIG. 1, the image sensors 120 are mounted on the treadmill 100 facing the user of the treadmill such that the image sensors 120 capture an image around the waist area of the user 110. In alternative implementations, the image sensors 120 could be mounted such that the sensors capture image(s) of other parts of the user, such as the user's chest, legs, midsection, etc”, paragraph 0018; As noted above, the first group of said plurality of distance values of the claimed invention is shown by the image sensors mounted such that the sensors capture the images of the user’s chest. Therefore, the images corresponding to the sensors capturing the user’s chest that are provided to the control circuit shows the selection of the first group); - calculating (1012), by means of said logic control unit (C), said distance of at least one portion of the chest (O1) of the user (U) from said detecting device (123) as a statistical data of said first group of values of said plurality of distance values of at least one portion of the body (O) (Wilson, “Each image sensor 120 takes an image of the user (for example, the user's waist area) at substantially the same time (e.g., within a portion of a second to each other). The two images are then adjusted at step 204 for distortion in a process sometimes referred to as rectifying or rectification… Following the adjustment step 204, the adjusted/rectified images are then employed in a matching algorithm to create what is referred to as a disparity map (a map that shows the pixel distance of the shift between two images) at step 206. The disparity map can be used to determine the distance of the user of the treadmill relative to the treadmill, or relative, for example, to a predetermined position on an upper portion of the endless belt loop”, paragraph 0020-0024; The distance of the user of the treadmill relative to the treadmill of Wilson shows the distance of at least one portion of the chest, and in the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, as a statistical data of the first group of values of the claimed invention).
Regarding claim 3, Wilson shows method according to claim 2, wherein it comprises the following step: - comparing (104), by means of said logic control unit (C), said current distance data of at least one portion of the chest (O1), calculated in said sub-step of calculating (1012), with a predetermined reference value (O1R), corresponding to an optimal distance of the user (U) from said detecting device (123), on said exercise surface (111) (Wilson, “At step 302, the system provides a predetermined zero point or area near the center of the treadmill to the controller 320. This point is the general location relative to the treadmill that a user will try to maintain during use of the treadmill. Venturing too far away from this central location during use may present certain safety considerations to the user, such as falling off the treadmill belt, or coming into contact with the front portion of the treadmill, which could cause the user to lose balance and sustain an injury. The purpose of the zero point is to determine whether the belt needs to slow down (user behind zero point) or speed up (user in front of zero point). At step 304, the image sensors 120 capture the images of the user, for example, the user's waist area, and the user's position is measured using the image sensor calculations at step 306, as described above with reference to FIG. 2 and its description. As noted above, the position of the user is then fed to the controller 320, which can include one or more processors, at step 308. The controller 320 calculates the parameters, such as velocity and/or acceleration, and sends that information to the treadmill motor controlling the endless loop belt surface at step 310 in order to increase or decrease the speed of the endless belt loop in an attempt to maintain the user's location within or near the zero or central location of the treadmill”, paragraph 0026, the predetermined zero point or area near the center of the treadmill of Wilson shows the predetermined reference value of the claimed invention).
Regarding claim 4, Wilson shows method according to claim 3, wherein said step of comparing (104) comprises the following sub-steps: - if said current distance data of at least one portion of the chest (O1) is higher than said predetermined reference value (O1R) plus a predetermined threshold value (S), then commanding the decrease (1041), by means of said logic control unit (C), of the advancement speed of said exercise surface (111), - if said current distance data of at least one portion of the chest (O1) is included in a range having as lower bound said predetermined reference value (O1R) minus said predetermined threshold value (S) and as upper bound said predetermined reference value (O1R) plus said predetermined threshold value (S), then leave unchanged (1042) the advancement speed of said exercise surface (111); - if said current distance data of at least one portion of the chest (O1) is lower than said predetermined reference value (O1R) minus a predetermined threshold value (S), then command the increase (1043), by means of said logic control unit (C), of the advancement speed of said exercise surface (111) (Wilson, “At step 302, the system provides a predetermined zero point or area near the center of the treadmill to the controller 320. This point is the general location relative to the treadmill that a user will try to maintain during use of the treadmill… The purpose of the zero point is to determine whether the belt needs to slow down (user behind zero point) or speed up (user in front of zero point). At step 304, the image sensors 120 capture the images of the user, for example, the user's waist area, and the user's position is measured using the image sensor calculations at step 306, as described above with reference to FIG. 2 and its description. As noted above, the position of the user is then fed to the controller 320, which can include one or more processors, at step 308. The controller 320 calculates the parameters, such as velocity and/or acceleration, and sends that information to the treadmill motor controlling the endless loop belt surface at step 310 in order to increase or decrease the speed of the endless belt loop in an attempt to maintain the user's location within or near the zero or central location of the treadmill”; The increasing of the speed of the treadmill of Wilson shows the command of increasing the advancement speed of said exerciser surface of the claimed invention as a result of the user’s distance from the treadmill being less than the predetermined zero point or area of Wilson. Similarly, the decreasing of the speed of the treadmill of Wilson shows the command of decreasing the advancement speed of said exerciser surface of the claimed invention as a result of the user’s distance from the treadmill being more than the predetermined zero point or area of Wilson. Although Wilson does not explicitly state leaving the speed along if the user’s position is within the desired distance range, Wilson does disclose ‘The controller 320 calculates the parameters, such as velocity and/or acceleration, and sends that information to the treadmill motor controlling the endless loop belt surface at step 310 in order to increase or decrease the speed of the endless belt loop in an attempt to maintain the user's location within or near the zero or central location of the treadmill’. Therefore, no action is taken by the controller to increase or decrease the speed as the user is able to maintain the location within or near the zero or central location of the treadmill, thereby teaching leaving the advancement speed of said exercise surface of the claimed invention unchanged).
Regarding claim 5, Wilson shows method according to claim 1, wherein said processing step (102) comprises the following sub-steps: - selecting (1021), by means of said logic control unit (C), said second group of values of said plurality of distance values of at least one portion of the body (O) (Wilson; “In the implementation shown in FIG. 1, the image sensors 120 are mounted on the treadmill 100 facing the user of the treadmill such that the image sensors 120 capture an image around the waist area of the user 110. In alternative implementations, the image sensors 120 could be mounted such that the sensors capture image(s) of other parts of the user, such as the user's chest, legs, midsection, etc”, paragraph 0018; As noted above, the first group of said plurality of distance values of the claimed invention is shown by the image sensors mounted such that the sensors capture the images of the user’s chest. Therefore, the images corresponding to the sensors capturing the right leg of the user’s legs that are provided to the control circuit shows the selection of the second group); - calculating (1022), by means of said logic control unit (C), said distance of at least one portion of the right leg (O2) of the user (U) from said detecting device (123) as a statistical data of said second group of values of said plurality of distance values of at least one portion of the body (O) (Wilson, “Each image sensor 120 takes an image of the user (for example, the user's waist area) at substantially the same time (e.g., within a portion of a second to each other). The two images are then adjusted at step 204 for distortion in a process sometimes referred to as rectifying or rectification… Following the adjustment step 204, the adjusted/rectified images are then employed in a matching algorithm to create what is referred to as a disparity map (a map that shows the pixel distance of the shift between two images) at step 206. The disparity map can be used to determine the distance of the user of the treadmill relative to the treadmill, or relative, for example, to a predetermined position on an upper portion of the endless belt loop”, paragraph 0020-0024; The distance of the user of the treadmill relative to the treadmill of Wilson shows the distance of at least one portion of the right leg of the legs of the user, and in the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, as a statistical data of the first group of values of the claimed invention).
Regarding claim 6, Wilson shows method according to claim 1, wherein said processing step (103) comprises the following sub-steps: - selecting (1031), by means of said logic control unit (C), said third group of values of said plurality of distance values of at least one portion of the body (O) (Wilson; “In the implementation shown in FIG. 1, the image sensors 120 are mounted on the treadmill 100 facing the user of the treadmill such that the image sensors 120 capture an image around the waist area of the user 110. In alternative implementations, the image sensors 120 could be mounted such that the sensors capture image(s) of other parts of the user, such as the user's chest, legs, midsection, etc”, paragraph 0018; As noted above, the first group of said plurality of distance values of the claimed invention is shown by the image sensors mounted such that the sensors capture the images of the user’s chest. Therefore, the images corresponding to the sensors capturing the left leg of the user’s legs that are provided to the control circuit shows the selection of the second group); - calculating (1032), by means of said logic control unit (C), said distance of at least one portion of the left leg (O3) of the user (U) from said detecting device (123) as a statistical data of said third group of values of said plurality of distance values of at least one portion of the body (O) (Wilson, “Each image sensor 120 takes an image of the user (for example, the user's waist area) at substantially the same time (e.g., within a portion of a second to each other). The two images are then adjusted at step 204 for distortion in a process sometimes referred to as rectifying or rectification… Following the adjustment step 204, the adjusted/rectified images are then employed in a matching algorithm to create what is referred to as a disparity map (a map that shows the pixel distance of the shift between two images) at step 206. The disparity map can be used to determine the distance of the user of the treadmill relative to the treadmill, or relative, for example, to a predetermined position on an upper portion of the endless belt loop”, paragraph 0020-0024; The distance of the user of the treadmill relative to the treadmill of Wilson shows the distance of at least one portion of the left leg of the legs of the user, and in the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, as a statistical data of the first group of values of the claimed invention).
Regarding claim 7, Wilson shows method according to claim 5, wherein it comprises the following step: - providing a display (105) of the parameters of the execution of the gymnastic exercise, based on the distance data calculated in said sub-steps of calculating (1022; 1032) (Wilson, “a flow diagram depicting a process 200 for capturing images of a user and determining a distance of the user relative to the treadmill and providing that information to a control circuit to control a speed of the treadmill is illustrated”, paragraph 0020, and “To provide for interaction with a user, embodiments of the subject matter described in this specification can be implemented on a computer having a display device, e.g., LCD (liquid crystal display), OLED (organic light emitting diode) or other monitor, for displaying information to the user and a keyboard and a pointing device, e.g., a mouse or a trackball, by which the user can provide input to the computer”, paragraph 0033; The displayed information to the user via the display device includes the distance of the user relative to the treadmill. Moreover, Wilson discloses, “Treadmills include an endless powered belt loop supported on a frame such that an upper portion of the belt loop requires the user to run or walk at a predetermined pace based on the speed of the belt loop, which is driven by a drive motor”, thereby also showing the gymnastic exercise of the claimed invention with the running or walking of the user with the treadmill).
Regarding claim 12, Wilson shows method according to claim 1, wherein in said step of detecting (100), said plurality of distance values of at least one portion of the body (O) of said user (U) is detected in the form of a matrix (M), in which at least one distance value (O) is associated with each cell (Wilson, “Each image sensor 120 takes an image of the user (for example, the user's waist area) at substantially the same time (e.g., within a portion of a second to each other). The two images are then adjusted at step 204 for distortion in a process sometimes referred to as rectifying or rectification. The adjustment step 204 is performed based on a previous calibration to account for image distortion caused by, for example, the lenses of the image sensors… The parameters of the distortions are represented in, for example, a 4×3 camera matrix. The goal of intrinsic camera calibration is to determine the camera matrix for each individual sensor and lens combination… Following the adjustment step 204, the adjusted/rectified images are then employed in a matching algorithm to create what is referred to as a disparity map (a map that shows the pixel distance of the shift between two images) at step 206. The disparity map can be used to determine the distance of the user of the treadmill relative to the treadmill, or relative, for example, to a predetermined position on an upper portion of the endless belt loop. Any suitable process for creating a disparity map may be employed without departing from the spirit of this disclosure. As one example, to determine real world distance, the image sensor capture images relatively or substantially at the same time. The captured images are then rectified and compared by choosing an area on the first image and then finding that same area on the second image. This process is repeated for the entire image frame. This creates a map of pixel distances, which is directly related to real world distance based on the focal distances and distance between the two cameras (baseline). To find the transformation from pixel distance to real world distance, objects are measured at many known distances, which are then related back to the calculated pixel distance. The found model then can be used to estimate the world distance relatively accurately”, paragraphs 0021-0024; The disparity map of Wilson shows the plurality of distance values being detected in the form of a matrix of the claimed invention, and the map of pixel distances of Wilson shows each cell being associated with at least one distance value of the claimed invention. Moreover, since the pixel distances of Wilson correspond to the distance of the parts of the user from the control panel of the treadmill through calibration and rectification, the disparity map of Wilson corresponds to the distance of the parts of the user from the control panel of the treadmill and shows the matrix of distance values of the claimed invention).
Regarding claim 13, Wilson shows method according to claim 12, wherein said first group of said plurality of distance values of at least one portion of the body (O) of said user (U) is contained in an upper portion (M1) of said matrix (M) (Wilson, “the image sensors 120 could be mounted such that the sensors capture image(s) of other parts of the user, such as the user's chest, legs, midsection, etc.”; As noted above in claim 1, one of the distances captured by the image sensors is that of the chest of the user. Therefore, in light of the explanation above in claim 12, the part of the matrix captured for the chest corresponds to the upper portion of the matrix as well).
Regarding claim 14, Wilson shows method according to claim 12, wherein said second group of said plurality of distance values of at least one portion of the body (O) of said user (U) is contained in a first lower portion (M21) of said matrix (M) (Wilson, “the image sensors 120 could be mounted such that the sensors capture image(s) of other parts of the user, such as the user's chest, legs, midsection, etc.”; As noted above in claim 1, one of the distances captured by the image sensors is that of the legs of the user, one of the legs being the right leg. Therefore, in light of the explanation above in claim 12, the part of the matrix captured for the right leg corresponds to the right lower of the matrix as well, or at least the first lower portion of the matrix).
Regarding claim 15, Wilson shows method according to claim 12, wherein said third group of said plurality of distance values of at least one portion of the body (O) of said user (U) is contained in the cells of a second lower portion (M22) of said matrix (M) (Wilson, “the image sensors 120 could be mounted such that the sensors capture image(s) of other parts of the user, such as the user's chest, legs, midsection, etc.”; As noted above in claim 1, one of the distances captured by the image sensors is that of the legs of the user, one of the legs being the left leg. Therefore, in light of the explanation above in claim 12, the part of the matrix captured for the left leg corresponds to the right lower of the matrix as well, or at least the second lower portion of the matrix).
Regarding claim 16, Wilson shows computer program comprising instructions that, when said program is executed by a computer, cause the execution by said processor of the steps of said method according to claim 1 (Wilson, “The processes and logic flows described in this specification can be performed by one or more programmable computers executing one or more computer programs to perform functions by operating on input data and generating output”, paragraph 0030).
Regarding claim 17, Wilson shows computer readable storage medium, comprising instructions that, when said program is executed by a computer, cause the execution by said processor of the steps of said method according to claim 1 (Wilson, “A non-transitory computer storage medium encoded with instructions that, when executed by one or more computers, cause the one or more computers to perform the method of any of claims 11 to 13”, claim 14).
Regarding claim 18, gymnastic machine (1) comprising: - an exercise surface (111) for the training of a user (U) on said gymnastic machine (1) (Wilson, “an endless belt loop supported on the platform so as to have an upper belt portion on which a user can stride”, claim 6), the exercise surface (111) having a development direction (L) and an advancement direction (V) parallel to the development direction (L) of the exercise surface (111) (Wilson, “The endless belt loop 104 is configured to be driven or recirculated by a drive motor (not shown) disposed under a motor cover 105 in a conventional manner”, paragraph 0017, FIG. 1; As the user is walking forward on the treadmill and the endless belt of Wilson is being driven by the motor, the advancement direction is away from the front of the treadmill where the control panel 108 is positioned. Although Wilson does not explicitly disclose a floor or an exercise surface for which the rectangular platform 102 of the treadmill rests, it is understood there is a floor or exercise surface that supports the treadmill of Wilson. In so much as applicant has shown the development direction (L) as the longitudinal axis L in the specification, the treadmill of Wilson shows this development direction of the claimed invention being parallel to the advancement direction of the claimed invention); - a logic control unit (C) of the movement of the exercise surface (111) (Wilson, “Referring to FIG. 2, a flow diagram depicting a process 200 for capturing images of a user and determining a distance of the user relative to the treadmill and providing that information to a control circuit to control a speed of the treadmill is illustrated”; The control circuit of Wilson shows the logic unit control of the claimed invention); - a detecting device (123), operatively connected to said logic control unit (C), configured to detect at least one distance value (O) of a portion of the user (U) from said detecting device (123) itself, during the execution of the gymnastic exercise by the user (U) on the exercise surface (111) (Wilson, “a pair of image sensors 120 are mounted to an underside of the control panel 108… Referring to FIG. 2, a flow diagram depicting a process 200 for capturing images of a user and determining a distance of the user relative to the treadmill and providing that information to a control circuit to control a speed of the treadmill is illustrated”, paragraphs 0018-0020, see FIG. 1 below; The pair of image sensors of Wilson shows the detecting device of the claimed invention); - said logic control unit (C) being configured to carry out the method for detecting the distance of portions of the body of a user (U) from a part of a gymnastic machine (1) according to claim 1 (Wilson, “Referring to FIG. 2, a flow diagram depicting a process 200 for capturing images of a user and determining a distance of the user relative to the treadmill and providing that information to a control circuit to control a speed of the treadmill is illustrated”).
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.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson (PG Patent Publication No. US20220111247A1), in view of Knarr (PG Patent Publication No. US20240216761A1).
Regarding claim 8, Wilson shows method according to claim 7, including the gymnastic machine and the display.
Wilson fails to explicitly show said step of providing a display (105) comprising the following sub-steps: - obtaining the oscillation period (TD) of the right leg, from said distance data of at least one portion of the right leg (O2); - obtaining the oscillation period (TS) of the left leg, from said distance data of at least one portion of the right leg (O2); - comparing said oscillation period (TD) of the right leg and said oscillation period (TS) of the left leg; - displaying the result of said comparison by means of a display (D) of said gymnastic machine (1).
However, Knarr, from the same field of endeavor, discloses in paragraphs 0025-0026, “the system 100 for controlling exercise equipment based on user pace and motion analysis… the COM sensor 106 and the one or more off-center sensors 104 are time-of-flight (TOF) sensors, such as but not limited to: optical sensors (e.g., infrared sensors, Lidar sensors, etc.), radar sensors, or hybrid sensors. In a treadmill implementation, for example, the system 100 may include: a first TOF sensor (i.e., the COM sensor 106) configured to track a position of a body of a user on the treadmill over time; a second TOF sensor (i.e., left-side/left-shank off-center sensor 104) configured to track a position of a left leg of the user on the treadmill over time; and a third TOF sensor (i.e., right-side/right-shank off-center sensor 104) configured to track a position of a right leg of the user on the treadmill over time. As discussed in more detail below, the control unit 102 may be configured to modulate a speed of the treadmill based on measurements from the first, second, and third TOF sensors”.
Knarr teaches the following sub-steps: - obtaining the oscillation period (TD) of the right leg, from said distance data of at least one portion of the right leg (O2); - obtaining the oscillation period (TS) of the left leg, from said distance data of at least one portion of the right leg (O2); - comparing said oscillation period (TD) of the right leg and said oscillation period (TS) of the left leg (Knarr, “The control unit 102 reads the user's current cadence, position, and speed through the sensor system (sensors 104, 106, etc.) that detect the left and right shank swing as well as the user's center of mass. The control unit 102 then compares these readings against the desired cadence, position, and speed and sends the corresponding speed update signals to the treadmill 200 as needed… The algorithm then causes the control unit 102 to: read the optical sensor distance values; weight values dynamically based off data integrity; calculate delta on heel strikes; and run calculations to get new user speed. In embodiments, multiple sets of sensor measurements are temporarily stored within a measurement window for processing by the control unit 102, and the measurement window is continuously being updated by deleting an oldest set of sensor measurements and adding a newest set of sensor measurements… the system 100 only requires the last two peaks and calculates a change between them. Data smoothing and corrections happen within the algorithm and only affect change to improve data being acted upon to allow a better choice when making/feeding the treadmill changes”, paragraphs 0049-0055, see FIG. 3B below; The oscillation period of the right leg and that of the left leg are seen below in FIG. 3B, and the comparison is seen in the graph of 3B with both oscillations presented).
PNG
media_image2.png
442
496
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
685
428
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Knarr
PNG
media_image4.png
395
601
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Knarr
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill of the claimed invention before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the treadmill of Wilson to also specifically capture information with respect to cadence, as taught by Knarr, as Wilson already discloses in paragraph 0001-0002, “Treadmills include an endless powered belt loop supported on a frame such that an upper portion of the belt loop requires the user to run or walk at a predetermined pace based on the speed of the belt loop… The powering of the belt loop can create potential hazards in that the user is required to keep up with the pace set by the speed of the belt”. Therefore, the pace or cadence of the user is essential to determining the safety of the user while using the treadmill. Both Wilson and Knarr adjust the speed of the treadmill depending on the user’s position. Knarr simply includes cadence and speed as a requirement to adjust the speed of the treadmill as needed, making this modification obvious. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to display the comparison the oscillations of the left and right legs of the user with the display device of Wilson, as the cadence, and consequently the oscillations of each of the legs, is part of the information detected by the treadmill to determine the safety of the user like that of the distance detected of the user.
Regarding claim 9, Wilson shows method according to claim 7, including the gymnastic machine and the display.
Wilson fails to explicitly teach said step of providing a display (105) comprising the following sub-steps: - obtaining the amplitude of the oscillation (AS) of the left leg, from said distance data of at least one portion of the left leg (O3); - obtaining the amplitude of the oscillation (AD) of the right leg, from said distance data of at least one portion of the right leg (O2); - comparing said amplitude of the oscillation (AD) of the right leg and said amplitude of the oscillation (AS) of the left leg; - displaying said amplitude of the oscillation (AD) of the right leg and said amplitude of the oscillation (AS) of the left leg or the result of said comparison by means of a display (D) of said gymnastic machine (1).
However, Knarr, from the same field of endeavor, discloses in paragraphs 0025-0026, “the system 100 for controlling exercise equipment based on user pace and motion analysis… the COM sensor 106 and the one or more off-center sensors 104 are time-of-flight (TOF) sensors, such as but not limited to: optical sensors (e.g., infrared sensors, Lidar sensors, etc.), radar sensors, or hybrid sensors. In a treadmill implementation, for example, the system 100 may include: a first TOF sensor (i.e., the COM sensor 106) configured to track a position of a body of a user on the treadmill over time; a second TOF sensor (i.e., left-side/left-shank off-center sensor 104) configured to track a position of a left leg of the user on the treadmill over time; and a third TOF sensor (i.e., right-side/right-shank off-center sensor 104) configured to track a position of a right leg of the user on the treadmill over time. As discussed in more detail below, the control unit 102 may be configured to modulate a speed of the treadmill based on measurements from the first, second, and third TOF sensors”.
Knarr teaches the following sub-steps: - obtaining the amplitude of the oscillation (AS) of the left leg, from said distance data of at least one portion of the left leg (O3); - obtaining the amplitude of the oscillation (AD) of the right leg, from said distance data of at least one portion of the right leg (O2); - comparing said amplitude of the oscillation (AD) of the right leg and said amplitude of the oscillation (AS) of the left leg (Knarr, “The control unit 102 reads the user's current cadence, position, and speed through the sensor system (sensors 104, 106, etc.) that detect the left and right shank swing as well as the user's center of mass. The control unit 102 then compares these readings against the desired cadence, position, and speed and sends the corresponding speed update signals to the treadmill 200 as needed… The algorithm then causes the control unit 102 to: read the optical sensor distance values; weight values dynamically based off data integrity; calculate delta on heel strikes; and run calculations to get new user speed. In embodiments, multiple sets of sensor measurements are temporarily stored within a measurement window for processing by the control unit 102, and the measurement window is continuously being updated by deleting an oldest set of sensor measurements and adding a newest set of sensor measurements… the system 100 only requires the last two peaks and calculates a change between them. Data smoothing and corrections happen within the algorithm and only affect change to improve data being acted upon to allow a better choice when making/feeding the treadmill changes”, paragraphs 0049-0055, see FIG. 3B below; The amplitude of the right leg and that of the left leg are seen below in FIG. 3B, the reading the optical sensor distance values of Knarr teaches the amplitudes coming from the distance data of the corresponding legs, and the comparison is seen in the graph of 3B with both wave functions presented).
PNG
media_image2.png
442
496
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
685
428
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
395
601
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Knarr
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill of the claimed invention before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the treadmill of Wilson to also specifically capture information with respect to cadence, as taught by Knarr, as Wilson already discloses in paragraph 0001-0002, “Treadmills include an endless powered belt loop supported on a frame such that an upper portion of the belt loop requires the user to run or walk at a predetermined pace based on the speed of the belt loop… The powering of the belt loop can create potential hazards in that the user is required to keep up with the pace set by the speed of the belt”. Therefore, the pace or cadence of the user is essential to determining the safety of the user while using the treadmill. Both Wilson and Knarr adjust the speed of the treadmill depending on the user’s position. Knarr simply includes cadence and speed as a requirement to adjust the speed of the treadmill as needed, making this modification obvious. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to display the comparison the amplitudes of the left and right legs of the user with the display device of Wilson, as the cadence, and consequently the amplitudes of each of the legs, is part of the information detected by the treadmill to determine the safety of the user like that of the distance detected of the user.
Regarding claim 10, Wilson method according to claim 7, including the gymnastic machine and the display.
Wilson fails to explicitly teach said step of providing a display (105) comprising the following sub-steps: - obtaining the oscillation period (TD) of the right leg, from said distance data of at least one portion of the right leg (O2); - obtaining the oscillation period (TS) of the left leg, from said distance data of at least one portion of the left leg (O3); - calculating the running cadence (C) as the inverse of the time (TSD) that passes between two successive peaks of the oscillation (TD) of the right leg and of the oscillation (TS) of the left leg.
However, Knarr, from the same field of endeavor, discloses in paragraphs 0025-0026, “the system 100 for controlling exercise equipment based on user pace and motion analysis… the COM sensor 106 and the one or more off-center sensors 104 are time-of-flight (TOF) sensors, such as but not limited to: optical sensors (e.g., infrared sensors, Lidar sensors, etc.), radar sensors, or hybrid sensors. In a treadmill implementation, for example, the system 100 may include: a first TOF sensor (i.e., the COM sensor 106) configured to track a position of a body of a user on the treadmill over time; a second TOF sensor (i.e., left-side/left-shank off-center sensor 104) configured to track a position of a left leg of the user on the treadmill over time; and a third TOF sensor (i.e., right-side/right-shank off-center sensor 104) configured to track a position of a right leg of the user on the treadmill over time. As discussed in more detail below, the control unit 102 may be configured to modulate a speed of the treadmill based on measurements from the first, second, and third TOF sensors”.
However, Knarr teaches the following sub-steps: - obtaining the oscillation period (TD) of the right leg, from said distance data of at least one portion of the right leg (O2); - obtaining the oscillation period (TS) of the left leg, from said distance data of at least one portion of the left leg (O3); - calculating the running cadence (C) as the inverse of the time (TSD) that passes between two successive peaks of the oscillation (TD) of the right leg and of the oscillation (TS) of the left leg (Knarr, “The control unit 102 reads the user's current cadence, position, and speed through the sensor system (sensors 104, 106, etc.) that detect the left and right shank swing as well as the user's center of mass. The control unit 102 then compares these readings against the desired cadence, position, and speed and sends the corresponding speed update signals to the treadmill 200 as needed… The algorithm then causes the control unit 102 to: read the optical sensor distance values; weight values dynamically based off data integrity; calculate delta on heel strikes; and run calculations to get new user speed. In embodiments, multiple sets of sensor measurements are temporarily stored within a measurement window for processing by the control unit 102, and the measurement window is continuously being updated by deleting an oldest set of sensor measurements and adding a newest set of sensor measurements… The window (MW) is always refreshed with new data and only keeps as much data as needed (set by the dials) to allow the algorithm to detect changes in cadence… the system 100 only requires the last two peaks and calculates a change between them. Data smoothing and corrections happen within the algorithm and only affect change to improve data being acted upon to allow a better choice when making/feeding the treadmill changes”, paragraphs 0049-0055, see FIG. 3B below; The oscillation period of the right leg and that of the left leg are seen below in FIG. 3B, and the changes in cadence from the last two peaks of Knarr shows the running cadence of the claimed invention).
PNG
media_image2.png
442
496
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
685
428
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Knarr
PNG
media_image4.png
395
601
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Knarr
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill of the claimed invention before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the treadmill of Wilson to also specifically capture information with respect to cadence, as taught by Knarr, as Wilson already discloses in paragraph 0001-0002, “Treadmills include an endless powered belt loop supported on a frame such that an upper portion of the belt loop requires the user to run or walk at a predetermined pace based on the speed of the belt loop… The powering of the belt loop can create potential hazards in that the user is required to keep up with the pace set by the speed of the belt”. Therefore, the pace or cadence of the user is essential to determining the safety of the user while using the treadmill. Both Wilson and Knarr adjust the speed of the treadmill depending on the user’s position. Knarr simply includes cadence and speed as a requirement to adjust the speed of the treadmill as needed, making this modification obvious. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to display the cadence as the cadence is part of the information detected by the treadmill to determine the safety of the user like that of the distance detected of the user.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson (PG Patent Publication No. US20220111247A1), in view of Dong (Chinese Patent Publication No. CN112807617A).
Regarding claim 11, Wilson shows method according to claim 1, including the gymnastics machine.
Wilson fails to show - detecting (200) a plurality of ambient brightness values; - processing (201) said plurality of detected ambient brightness values for calculating an ambient brightness index (IL); - comparing (202), said ambient brightness index (IL), with a predetermined threshold value; - if said ambient brightness index (IL) is greater than said predetermined threshold value, carrying out the steps of the method according to any one of claims 1-10; - if said ambient brightness index (IL) is lower than said predetermined threshold value, activating a safety operating state for said gymnastic machine (1).
However, Dong, from the same field of endeavor, discloses in page 1, “The invention claims a method and a device for monitoring and guiding running safety based on three-dimensional camera. The method comprises: S1, obtaining the moving image and/or video data of the target sporter through the three-dimensional camera; S2, calculating the three-dimensional position information of the target sporter; S3, establishing the range of motion safety S4, comparing the human body three-dimensional position information of the target player in a certain time or the preset time period with the established movement safety and S5, based on the comparison result, providing feedback and/or adjusting running mode to the target player”. Dong continues to disclose on page 6, “the three-dimensional camera comprises at least one of the following: time flight camera, structured light camera and binocular camera. Specifically, Time of flight (Time of flight, abbreviated as TOF) camera is by continuously sending light pulse to the target, then using the sensor to receive light reflected from the object, then by detecting the flight time of the light pulse to obtain the target distance information to the camera”.
PNG
media_image5.png
341
420
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Dong
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the image sensors of Wilson to be the time of flight camera of Dong as Wilson discloses in paragraph 0019, “The image sensors 120 can comprise any number of suitable image capturing devices, such as natural light, ultraviolet, infra-red, or other suitable cameras used for capturing images”. Specifying the image sensors to specifically be the time of flight sensors of Dong is therefore obvious as time of flight sensors are a type of image sensors. Furthermore, with this modification, the adjustment of the speed of the endless belt of Wilson remains the same based on the light reflected from the user and received from the time of flight camera. More specifically, the modified treadmill of Wilson with the time of flight camera of Dong teaches the processing said plurality of detected ambient brightness values, comparing the ambient brightness index with a predetermined threshold value, and if said ambient brightness index is greater than said predetermined threshold value, carrying out the steps of the method according to any one of claims 1-10 of the claimed invention. Furthermore, the replacement of the image sensors of Wilson with the time of flight camera of Dong teaches if said ambient brightness index is lower than said predetermined threshold value, activating a safety operating state for said gymnastic machine.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to J NICOLE LOBERIZA whose telephone number is (571)272-4741. The examiner can normally be reached 8am - 5:30pm.
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, LoAn Jimenez can be reached at 571-272-4966. 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.
/JACQUELINE N L LOBERIZA/Examiner, Art Unit 3784
/LOAN B JIMENEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3784
