DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 5 recites a method for providing interactive personal training using VR and Al. The limitation of displaying a realistic training environment to a user through a VR headset, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “VR headset” and “computer” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “VR headset” and “computer” language, “displaying” in the context of this claim encompasses the user watching another user training. Similarly, the limitations of: tracking, providing, accessing, allowing, and enabling are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. The same interpretation is applied to the remaining steps in claim 5. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites a few additional elements – “VR headset” and “computer”. The “VR headset” and “computer” is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor implementing a step) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using “VR headset” and “computer” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Similar reasoning is applied to claims 1-4 and 6-11.
Claim Objections
The numbering of claims is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126 which requires the original numbering of the claims to be preserved throughout the prosecution.
In this case, the claims lack numbers. Applicant is advised to number the claims in the next response. Claims have been examined based on the assumptions of the numbers below.
Claim 1. A system for providing interactive personal training using Virtual Reality (VR) and Artificial Intelligence (Al), comprising: a. A VR headset that provides users with a realistic training environment; b. A computer that tracks the user's movements during training; c. A database containing actual videos of personal trainers demonstrating exercises; and d. A software program that: i. Displays the VR training environment to the user through the VR headset; ii. Tracks the user's movements during exercise performance; iii. Provides personalized feedback to the user based on their movements; and iv. Enables users to watch instructional videos of personal trainers and replicate the exercises in the VR environment.
Claim 2. The system of claim 1, wherein the software program further includes a feature for adjusting the difficulty of the training based on the user's progress.
Claim 3. The system of claim 1, wherein the software program further includes a feature for tracking the user's heart rate and providing feedback based on the user's heart rate.
Claim 4. The system of claim 1, wherein the software program is configured to be downloaded to the computer from a remote server.
Claim 5. A method for providing interactive personal training using VR and Al, comprising the steps of: a. Displaying a realistic training environment to a user through a VR headset; b. Tracking the user's movements during exercise performance using a computer; c. Providing personalized feedback to the user based on their movements; d. Accessing a database containing actual videos of personal trainers demonstrating exercises; e. Allowing the user to watch instructional videos of personal trainers; f. Enabling the user to replicate the exercises demonstrated in the videos within the VR environment.
Claim 6. The method of claim 5, further comprising the step of adjusting the difficulty of the training based on the user's progress.
Claim 7. The method of claim 5, further comprising the step of tracking the user's heart rate and providing feedback based on the user's heart rate.
Claim 8. The method of claim 5, wherein the software program is downloaded to the computer from a remote server.
Claim 9. The method of claim 5, further comprising the step of providing personalized feedback to the user based on an analysis of their performance in the VR training environment.
Claim 10. The method of claim 5, further comprising the step of recording and analyzing user data to improve the accuracy of personalized feedback and training recommendations.
Claim 11. The method of claim 5, further comprising the step of providing the user with progress reports and performance analytics based on their training sessions.
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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the virtual training environment" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the virtual environment" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the user’s" in lines 4 and 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the user" in lines 7 and 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites “users” in line 10 which renders the claim indefinite, because it is unclear whether this is referring to “users” in line 3 or different users.
Claim 1 recites “personal trainers” in line 10 which renders the claim indefinite, because it is unclear whether this is referring to “personal trainers” in line 5 or different users.
Claim 5 is rejected for reasons similar to claim 1. Claims 2-4 and 6-11 are rejected based on their dependencies.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication No. 2021/0154529 A1 to Barr (hereinafter “Barr”) in view of US Publication No. 2021/0008413 A1 to Asikainen et al. (hereinafter “Asikainen”).
Concerning claim 1, Barr discloses a system for providing interactive personal training using Virtual Reality (VR) and Artificial Intelligence (Al) (paragraphs [0013], [0043]), comprising:
a. A VR headset that provides users with a realistic training environment (paragraphs [0013], [0029]);
b. A computer that tracks the user's movements during training (paragraphs [0029]-[0034]); and
d. A software program that: i. Displays the VR training environment to the user through the VR headset; ii. Tracks the user's movements during exercise performance; iii. Provides personalized feedback to the user based on their movements (paragraphs [0013], [0029]-[0036]).
Barr lacks specifically disclosing, however, Asikainen discloses a database containing actual videos of personal trainers demonstrating exercises; iv. Enables users to watch instructional videos of personal trainers and replicate the exercises in the VR environment (paragraphs [0034], [0066], [0070]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the use of instructional videos as disclosed by Asikainen in the system of Barr in order to provide the user with examples of the proper exercise form, thereby improving a user’s results.
Concerning claims 2 and 6, Barr discloses wherein the software program further includes a feature for adjusting the difficulty of the training based on the user's progress (paragraph [0069]).
Concerning claims 3 and 7, Barr discloses wherein the software program further includes a feature for tracking the user's heart rate and providing feedback based on the user's heart rate (paragraphs [0013], [0029]-[0036]).
Concerning claims 4 and 8, Barr discloses wherein the software program is configured to be downloaded to the computer from a remote server (paragraphs [0013], [0029]-[0036]).
Concerning claim 5, see the rejection of claim 1.
Concerning claim 9, Barr discloses further comprising the step of providing personalized feedback to the user based on an analysis of their performance in the VR training environment (paragraphs [0013], [0029]-[0036]).
Concerning claim 10, Barr discloses further comprising the step of recording and analyzing user data to improve the accuracy of personalized feedback and training recommendations (paragraphs [0013], [0029]-[0036]).
Concerning claim 11, Barr discloses further comprising the step of providing the user with progress reports and performance analytics based on their training sessions (paragraphs [0013], [0029]-[0036]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is listed in the PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MALINA D BLAISE whose telephone number is (571)270-3398. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thurs. 7:00 am - 5:00 pm (PT).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Xuan Thai can be reached at 571-272-7147. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
MALINA D. BLAISE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3715
/MALINA D. BLAISE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715