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 .
Claims 1-30,37 (Cancelled).
Claims 31-36 and 38-50 are pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/6/2026 has been entered.
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 31-36,38-50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims are of a computerized system (48), a process (1-47,50), computer product and manufacture (49). Thus falls within one of the four statutory categories (Step 1: YES).
The process of learning, receiving, providing, comparing, feedback, …… and addressing performance score amounts to the abstract idea grouping of an abstract idea because it is observing, evaluating and judging training motor skills in selectable but for the recitation of generic computer components. Therefore, the claims recite a judicial exception The limitation of claims 1, 48,49,50 for the act of evaluating data, generating output information based on evaluation of a trainee, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind. The act of acquiring and comparing time frames of consecutive moves are managing of personal behavior but for the recitation of generic computer components and communication interface. That is, other than reciting “by a processor, outputting to communication interface” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed under certain method of organizing human activity. The recited steps or functions are abstract idea (Step 2A Prong1: Yes).
The claims recite additional elements, including a video configuration for selectable segments and recording of some outcome of learners’ behavior to generate report but are not significant more of an activity to make the claims patent eligible. Amendments add sequence of frames like trainer keyframe, candidate trainee frame and of selection therefrom within a time window of trainee video. They are known activities of a technical field but do not result in an improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field. The next step of comparing and sending of feedback does not require anything more than displaying and generating f a contemporaneous information related to this processed data, or alternatively just sending to a user interface an output known in art at a high level of generality. Thus not practically applying the abstract idea. The claims do not include limitations that integrate the judicial exception in a practical application. (Step 2A, prong 2: No).
Additionally all generic computer functions are indications of actions towards collecting, retrieving of information that are compared to known standards. This known in common using only known electronic devices as also indicated in page 19 for a use of general purpose computers. They are also well known, routine and conventional and do not offer meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the abstract idea identified above to a particular technological environment, i.e., computer environment. For example in case of Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93, the activities of storing and retrieving of information in a memory of consumer electronic for a field of use purposes are recognized to be use of computer functions. They are well known, routine and conventional and do not offer meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the abstract idea identified above to a particular technological environment. The elements here in the claim recitation do not improves the functioning of a computer itself to overcome the abstract idea rejection (Step 2B: No).
Dependent claims 2-47 when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations like facilitating motor learning, target priority value, prior handling of segments and time frames of video output, presence of performance matrix, video, data, hierarchical moves of frames are software item manipulation that fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. They tend towards extra-solution activities. Hence not patent eligible.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 31-36,38-50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patent Application Publication Number US 20180295419 A1 Thielen et al. (Thielen) in view of US Patent Application Publication Number US 20220057856 A1 SANKHLA (Shankla).
Claim 31 Thielen teaches a computerized method for facilitating motor learning of a motor skill by a trainee in relation to a trainer's motor skill (Fig.5 element 504,506 ; Fig.6 element 608 capture and skill modules ), the method comprising:
providing a trainer video, the trainer video including a trainer's motor skill (Fig.2 element 202 trainer video selection), the trainer's motor skill including a plurality of consecutive moves (Fig.6 element 604, 606 analysis deconstructing skill for consecutive moves), wherein the trainer video is divided into a plurality of selectable segments to be displayed to the trainee's device ( Para 0061 selectable segments or options ), wherein each selectable segment includes at least one move of the plurality of consecutive moves (Para 0032 0061 one selections or consecutive motor skills);
receiving data indicative of a selected segment of the plurality of selectable segments displayed to the trainee (Para 0041 captured image for user selected trainee segment);
receiving a trainee video comprising at least one trainee move ( Para 0076 trainee move time frames);
processing the at least one trainee move with respect to at least one corresponding move included in the selected segment to obtain a segment performance score (Para 0093 video segment moves ), indicative of a performance of the at least one trainee move in relation to the at least one corresponding move of the selected segment;(Para 0041 comparing performance between trainees and model trainer)
based on the segment performance score, generating at least one feedback ( Para 0042 feedback and suggested pathways ); and
providing the at least one generated feedback to the trainee's device (Para 0048 output device) ;
whereby the provided feedback facilitates the trainee to improve a performance of the motor skill with respect to the trainer's motor skill ( Para 0114 improve skills).
Thielen does not indicate consecutive moves, and wherein each trainer move comprises at least one trainer keyframe, where a keyframe comprises a subset of a sequence of frames, defining a starting or ending point of a transition in a move. Shankla, in an analogous art reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by inventor for reasonable expectation of success, however, teaches the processing at least one trainee move with respect to at least one corresponding move included in the selected segment to obtain a segment performance score, wherein each trainer move comprises at least one trainer keyframe, where a keyframe comprises a subset of a sequence of frames, defining a starting or ending point of a transition in a move (¶0066 provide a performance scoring for an exercise system including consecutive key frames, mapping is done based on the best matched frames or keyframes from the expert frames such that time sequence is maintained ). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate process for each trainer move with a trainer keyframe, where a keyframe comprises a subset of a sequence of frames, defining a starting or ending point of a transition as taught by Shankla, into the motor skill learning system of Thielen so as to obtain improves score correctness of exercise result of the learner.
Thielen also does not process receiving of a trainee video comprising at least one trainee move represented by a sequence of frames; for at least one trainer keyframe, selecting from the trainee video, at least one trainee keyframe wherein selecting the at least one trainee keyframe comprises selecting at least one candidate trainee frame within a time window in the trainee video that is around a time point of at least one trainer keyframe in the trainer video; analyzing the candidate trainee frames to determine for each candidate trainee frame an optimality score indicating of the matching degree of a candidate to a trainer keyframe and selecting the trainee frame having the highest optimality score as the trainee keyframe corresponding to each trainer keyframe. Shankla in an analogous art reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by inventor for reasonable expectation of success, however, teaches the processing at least one trainee move with respect to at least one corresponding trainer by selecting at least one candidate frame from the at least one trainee move and comparing it to at least one keyframe of the trainer move included in the selected segment having the highest optimality score (¶0066-0067 learner exercise data and coach or trainer exercise data can be obtained according to a candidate or selected frame number of the course video posture engine obtains the dynamic scores of the sequence of postures; mapping of learner with the expert frame is done in a movement and a movement error as well as a dynamic score of a movement are calculated for optimality score indicating of the matching degree of a candidate). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate selection of at least one candidate frame from the at least one trainee move and comparing it to at least one keyframe of the trainer move included in the selected segment for having a optimality score as taught by Shankla into the motor skill developing system of Thielen so as to make selection process organized.
Note: In animation and filmmaking, a key frame (or keyframe) is a drawing or shot that defines the starting and ending points of a smooth transition. These are called frames because their position in time is measured in frames on a strip of film or on a digital video editing timeline.
Claim 32 Thielen teaches the computerized method of claim 31, wherein at least one selectable segment includes at least one manipulated form of a move of the plurality of consecutive moves, wherein providing a trainer video further comprises providing an indication of the manipulation (Para 0043 manipulation).
Claim 33 Thielen teaches the computerized method of claim 32, wherein at least one manipulated form of the move is a slow-motion form of the move (Para 0080 slow motion).
Claim 34 Thielen teaches the computerized method of claim 32, wherein at least one manipulated form of the move includes superimposing a visual guidance on the trainer video (Para 0029 visuals and graphics overlaid on underlying video).
Claim 35 Thielen teaches the computerized method of claim 31, wherein at least two selectable segments include at least one overlapping move (Para 0044 overlaid to show user differences between the user's position or movements and model position or movements for the skill) .
Claim 36 Thielen teaches the computerized method of claim 31, wherein the trainer video is divided into a hierarchy of the plurality of selectable segments representing a hierarchical learning flow, wherein a selectable segment at a higher level of the hierarchy includes: (i) all the moves included in at least one lower level selectable segment of the hierarchy and, (ii) at least one move of the plurality of consecutive moves that is not included in the at least one lower level selectable segment of the hierarchy ( Para 0052 video segments are adjust according to hierarchical level; Para 0190-0192 base levels and other selectable segment identification and similar adjustments) .
Claim 38 Thielen teaches the computerized method of claim 31, wherein processing the at least one trainee move is done with respect to at least one aspect of the performance of the at least one trainee move, wherein the at least one aspect is timing (Para 0131 timing aspects ).
Claim 39 Thielen teaches the computerized method of claim 31, wherein processing the at least one trainee move is done with respect to at least one aspect of the performance of the at least one trainee move, wherein the at least one aspect is motion dynamics, or a combination of similarity aspect, timing aspect and motion dynamics aspect (Para 0115 similarity aspect; Para 0131 timing aspects).
Claim 40 Thielen teaches the computerized method of claim 31, wherein the at least one generated feedback includes at least general feedback pertaining to the performance of the motor skill and specific feedback pertaining to the performance of the selected segment (Para 0124 feedback performance of a skill and for range of acceptable performance of selected segments).
Claim 41 Thielen teaches the computerized method of claim 31, wherein processing the at least one trainee move is done with respect to at least one aspect of the performance of the at least one trainee move, and wherein a trainee move of the least one trainee move is defined by a set of joints, the method further comprising: selecting, based on the at least one aspect of the performance, a joint included in a processed trainee move to cut out; generating visual feedback including at least the selected joint; and providing the generated visual feedback to the trainee's device (Para 0125 defined by joint and corresponding measurements) .
Claim 42 Thielen teaches the computerized method of claim 31, wherein generating the at least one feedback further comprises: identifying at least two candidate feedbacks; and providing the at least two candidate feedbacks to the trainee's device (Para 0058 composite feedbacks that could be identified with at least two candidate values).
Claim 43 Thielen teaches the computerized method of claim 42, the method further comprising: filtering out at least one candidate feedback based on a history of feedbacks provided to the trainee; and providing the at least two candidate feedbacks to the trainee's device without the filtered out at least one candidate (Para 0058, 0059 filtering between completed view, filtering and attentiveness mechanisms ).
Claim 44 Thielen teaches the computerized method of 42, the method further comprising: associating a priority to at least one of the at least two candidate feedbacks based on pre-set priority rules, preferably selected from a group comprising: affected body parts of the trainee in the at least one trainee move, specificity of the feedback, history of provided feedbacks, and affected part of the move; and providing at least one candidate feedback having the highest priority to the trainee's device (Para 0122 priority-based feedback ).
Claim 45 Thielen teaches the computerized method of claim 31, wherein the at least one generated feedback includes at least the trainee video or a part thereof, the method further comprising: based on the at least one processed trainee move, obtaining at least one visual cue; determining, in real time, a location on the received trainee video suitable for superimposing the at least one obtained visual cue; and customizing the generated feedback by superimposing the at least one obtained visual cue on the trainee video at the determined Location (Para 0029 visuals and graphics overlaid on underlying video; .
Claim 46 Thielen teaches the computerized method of claim 45, the method further comprising: determining a time duration for superimposing the at least one obtained visual cue (visuals and graphics overlaid on underlying video; and superimposing the at least one obtained visual cue on the trainee video for the determined time duration.
Claim 47 Thielen teaches the computerized method of claim 31, wherein the generated feedback is provided in a manner facilitating displaying the generated feedback, in real time, simultaneously to displaying of the selected segment (Para 0129 real-time display )
Claim 48 Thielen teaches a computerized system for facilitating motor learning of a motor skill by a trainee in relation to a trainer's motor skill, the system comprising a processing and memory circuitry (PMC) configured to: provide a trainer video, the trainer video including a trainer's motor skill, the trainer's motor skill including a plurality of consecutive moves, wherein the trainer video is divided into a plurality of selectable segments to be displayed to the trainee's device, wherein each selectable segment includes at least one move of the plurality of consecutive moves; receive data indicative of a selected segment of the plurality of selectable segments displayed to the trainee; receive a trainee video comprising at least one trainee move; process the at least one trainee move with respect to at least one corresponding move included in the selected segment to obtain a segment performance, indicative of a performance of the at least one trainee move in relation to the at least one corresponding move of the selected segment; based on the segment performance, generate at least one feedback; and provide the at least one generated feedback to the trainee's device; whereby the provided feedback facilitates the trainee to improve a performance of the motor skill with respect to the trainer's motor skill (A computerized system for facilitating motor learning providing a trainer video, the trainer video including a trainer's motor skill as in Fig.2 element 202 trainer video selection; Fig.5 element 504,506 ; Fig.6 element 608 capture and skill modules; Fig.6 element 604, 606 analysis deconstructing skill for consecutive moves; Para 0032,0061 selectable segments or options for one selections or consecutive motor skills; Para 0041 comparing performance between trainees and model trainer; Para 0093 video segment moves; Para 0076 trainee move time frames; Para 0042 feedback and suggested pathways; providing the at least one generated feedback to the trainee's device as in Para 0048 output device and Para 0114 for improved skills).
Thielen does not indicate consecutive moves, and wherein each trainer move comprises at least one trainer keyframe, where a keyframe comprises a subset of a sequence of frames, defining a starting or ending point of a transition in a move. Shankla, in an analogous art reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by inventor for reasonable expectation of success, however, teaches the processing at least one trainee move with respect to at least one corresponding move included in the selected segment to obtain a segment performance score, wherein each trainer move comprises at least one trainer keyframe, where a keyframe comprises a subset of a sequence of frames, defining a starting or ending point of a transition in a move (¶0066 provide a performance scoring for an exercise system including consecutive key frames, mapping is done based on the best matched frames or keyframes from the expert frames such that time sequence is maintained ). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate process for each trainer move with a trainer keyframe, where a keyframe comprises a subset of a sequence of frames, defining a starting or ending point of a transition as taught by Shankla, into the motor skill learning system of Thielen so as to obtain improves score correctness of exercise result of the learner.
Thielen also does not process receiving of a trainee video comprising at least one trainee move represented by a sequence of frames; for at least one trainer keyframe, selecting from the trainee video, at least one trainee keyframe wherein selecting the at least one trainee keyframe comprises selecting at least one candidate trainee frame within a time window in the trainee video that is around a time point of at least one trainer keyframe in the trainer video; analyzing the candidate trainee frames to determine for each candidate trainee frame an optimality score indicating of the matching degree of a candidate to a trainer keyframe and selecting the trainee frame having the highest optimality score as the trainee keyframe corresponding to each trainer keyframe. Shankla in an analogous art reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by inventor for reasonable expectation of success, however, teaches the processing at least one trainee move with respect to at least one corresponding trainer by selecting at least one candidate frame from the at least one trainee move and comparing it to at least one keyframe of the trainer move included in the selected segment having the highest optimality score (¶0066-0067 learner exercise data and coach or trainer exercise data can be obtained according to a candidate or selected frame number of the course video posture engine obtains the dynamic scores of the sequence of postures; mapping of learner with the expert frame is done in a movement and a movement error as well as a dynamic score of a movement are calculated for optimality score indicating of the matching degree of a candidate). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate selection of at least one candidate frame from the at least one trainee move and comparing it to at least one keyframe of the trainer move included in the selected segment for having a optimality score as taught by Shankla into the motor skill developing system of Thielen so as to make selection process organized.
Claim 49 Thielen teaches a non-transitory computer readable storage medium tangibly embodying a program of instructions that, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to perform a method for facilitating communication with a user device of a user associated with a property in a property location, the method comprising: providing a trainer video, the trainer video including a trainer's motor skill, the trainer's motor skill including a plurality of consecutive moves, wherein the trainer video is divided into a plurality of selectable segments to be displayed to the trainee's device, wherein each selectable segment includes at least one move of the plurality of consecutive moves; receiving data indicative of a selected segment of the plurality of selectable segments displayed to the trainee; receiving a trainee video comprising at least one trainee move; processing the at least one trainee move with respect to at least one corresponding move included in the selected segment to obtain a segment performance, indicative of a performance of the at least one trainee move in relation to the at least one corresponding move of the selected segment; based on the segment performance, generating at least one feedback; and providing the at least one generated feedback to the trainee's device; whereby the provided feedback facilitates the trainee to improve a performance of the motor skill with respect to the trainer's motor skill (A non-transitory computer readable storage medium tangibly embodying a program of instructions facilitating motor learning of a motor skill providing a trainer video, the trainer video including a trainer's motor skill as in Fig.2 element 202 trainer video selection; Fig.5 element 504,506 ; Fig.6 element 608 capture and skill modules; Fig.6 element 604, 606 analysis deconstructing skill for consecutive moves; Para 0032,0061 selectable segments or options for one selections or consecutive motor skills; Para 0041 comparing performance between trainees and model trainer; Para 0093 video segment moves; Para 0076 trainee move time frames; Para 0042 feedback and suggested pathways; providing the at least one generated feedback to the trainee's device as in Para 0048 output device and Para 0114 for improved skills).
Thielen does not indicate consecutive moves, and wherein each trainer move comprises at least one trainer keyframe, where a keyframe comprises a subset of a sequence of frames, defining a starting or ending point of a transition in a move. Shankla, in an analogous art reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by inventor for reasonable expectation of success, however, teaches the processing at least one trainee move with respect to at least one corresponding move included in the selected segment to obtain a segment performance score, wherein each trainer move comprises at least one trainer keyframe, where a keyframe comprises a subset of a sequence of frames, defining a starting or ending point of a transition in a move (¶0066 provide a performance scoring for an exercise system including consecutive key frames, mapping is done based on the best matched frames or keyframes from the expert frames such that time sequence is maintained ). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate process for each trainer move with a trainer keyframe, where a keyframe comprises a subset of a sequence of frames, defining a starting or ending point of a transition as taught by Shankla, into the motor skill learning system of Thielen so as to obtain improves score correctness of exercise result of the learner.
Thielen also does not process receiving of a trainee video comprising at least one trainee move represented by a sequence of frames; for at least one trainer keyframe, selecting from the trainee video, at least one trainee keyframe wherein selecting the at least one trainee keyframe comprises selecting at least one candidate trainee frame within a time window in the trainee video that is around a time point of at least one trainer keyframe in the trainer video; analyzing the candidate trainee frames to determine for each candidate trainee frame an optimality score indicating of the matching degree of a candidate to a trainer keyframe and selecting the trainee frame having the highest optimality score as the trainee keyframe corresponding to each trainer keyframe. Shankla in an analogous art reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by inventor for reasonable expectation of success, however, teaches the processing at least one trainee move with respect to at least one corresponding trainer by selecting at least one candidate frame from the at least one trainee move and comparing it to at least one keyframe of the trainer move included in the selected segment having the highest optimality score (¶0066-0067 learner exercise data and coach or trainer exercise data can be obtained according to a candidate or selected frame number of the course video posture engine obtains the dynamic scores of the sequence of postures; mapping of learner with the expert frame is done in a movement and a movement error as well as a dynamic score of a movement are calculated for optimality score indicating of the matching degree of a candidate). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate selection of at least one candidate frame from the at least one trainee move and comparing it to at least one keyframe of the trainer move included in the selected segment for having a optimality score as taught by Shankla into the motor skill developing system of Thielen so as to make selection process organized.
Claim 50 Thielen teaches a trainee device, a computerized method for facilitating motor learning of a motor skill by a trainee in relation to a trainer's motor skill, the method comprising: providing a trainer video, the trainer video including a trainer's motor skill, the trainer's motor skill including a plurality of consecutive moves, wherein the trainer video is divided into a plurality of selectable segments to be displayed to the trainee's device, wherein each selectable segment includes at least one move of the plurality of consecutive moves; displaying the provided trainer video; receiving data indicative of a selected segment of the plurality of selectable segments displayed to the trainee; capturing a trainee video comprising at least one trainee move; processing the at least one trainee move with respect to at least one corresponding move included in the selected segment to obtain a segment performance, indicative of a performance of the at least one trainee move in relation to the at least one corresponding move of the selected segment; based on the segment performance, generating at least one feedback; and providing the at least one generated feedback to the trainee's device; whereby the provided feedback facilitates the trainee to improve a performance of the motor skill with respect to the trainer's motor skill (computerized method for facilitating motor learning of a motor skill providing a trainer video, the trainer video including a trainer's motor skill as in Fig.2 element 202 trainer video selection; Fig.5 element 504,506 ; Fig.6 element 608 capture and skill modules; Fig.6 element 604, 606 analysis deconstructing skill for consecutive moves; Para 0032,0061 selectable segments or options for one selections or consecutive motor skills; Para 0041 comparing performance between trainees and model trainer; Para 0093 video segment moves; Para 0076 trainee move time frames; Para 0042 feedback and suggested pathways; providing the at least one generated feedback to the trainee's device as in Para 0048 output device and Para 0114 for improved skills).
Thielen does not indicate consecutive moves, and wherein each trainer move comprises at least one trainer keyframe, where a keyframe comprises a subset of a sequence of frames, defining a starting or ending point of a transition in a move. Shankla, in an analogous art reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by inventor for reasonable expectation of success, however, teaches the processing at least one trainee move with respect to at least one corresponding move included in the selected segment to obtain a segment performance score, wherein each trainer move comprises at least one trainer keyframe, where a keyframe comprises a subset of a sequence of frames, defining a starting or ending point of a transition in a move (¶0066 provide a performance scoring for an exercise system including consecutive key frames, mapping is done based on the best matched frames or keyframes from the expert frames such that time sequence is maintained ). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate process for each trainer move with a trainer keyframe, where a keyframe comprises a subset of a sequence of frames, defining a starting or ending point of a transition as taught by Shankla, into the motor skill learning system of Thielen so as to obtain improves score correctness of exercise result of the learner.
Thielen also does not process receiving of a trainee video comprising at least one trainee move represented by a sequence of frames; for at least one trainer keyframe, selecting from the trainee video, at least one trainee keyframe wherein selecting the at least one trainee keyframe comprises selecting at least one candidate trainee frame within a time window in the trainee video that is around a time point of at least one trainer keyframe in the trainer video; analyzing the candidate trainee frames to determine for each candidate trainee frame an optimality score indicating of the matching degree of a candidate to a trainer keyframe and selecting the trainee frame having the highest optimality score as the trainee keyframe corresponding to each trainer keyframe. Shankla in an analogous art reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by inventor for reasonable expectation of success, however, teaches the processing at least one trainee move with respect to at least one corresponding trainer by selecting at least one candidate frame from the at least one trainee move and comparing it to at least one keyframe of the trainer move included in the selected segment having the highest optimality score (¶0066-0067 learner exercise data and coach or trainer exercise data can be obtained according to a candidate or selected frame number of the course video posture engine obtains the dynamic scores of the sequence of postures; mapping of learner with the expert frame is done in a movement and a movement error as well as a dynamic score of a movement are calculated for optimality score indicating of the matching degree of a candidate). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate selection of at least one candidate frame from the at least one trainee move and comparing it to at least one keyframe of the trainer move included in the selected segment for having a optimality score as taught by Shankla into the motor skill developing system of Thielen so as to make selection process organized.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
Applicant's arguments/amendments filed on February 6, 2026 have been considered.
Upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made as necessitated by amendments changing the scope of the claims.
35USC 112
Deleting the phrases and amendments to the effect made 35USC112(b) rejection to overcome as on page 16 of the remarks filed 2/6/2026.
35USC101
Applicant asserted about patent eligibility criterion from Pages 23-34 of remarks filed 2/6/2026 because of similarity of a distinct process performed for automating a previously human task but carried out in a different way such as in case of McRO. Examiner likes to respectfully traverse and would like to indicate that here machine is utilizing known frame comparison algorithm not improving technological process.
Patent eligibility under McRO, Inc. V. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016) indicated that it was the incorporation of the particular claimed rules in computer animation that "improved [the] existing technological process", unlike cases such as Alice where a computer was merely used as a tool to perform an existing process.
35USC103
Applicant on pages 16-23 has emphasized about technological advantage of video analysis of frames of claimed invention with the prior art Chuang numerical sensor data synchronization acceleration signals. But those are not in commensuration with the claim language.
Examiner agree that the secondary prior art Chuang may not make any use of a coach's or a trainer video to disclose any selection of candidate trainee frames around a trainer keyframe and does not disclose performing the comparison based on such selected frames. Accordingly, the manner in which frames are selected and analyzed in the present claims is fundamentally different from the segment-based signal comparison described in Chuang. Applicant has also provided citations to Figs. 6 and 8 and paragraphs [0230]-[0232] and [0238]-[0241] to illustrate the selection of keyframes in the trainer video and the selection of candidate frames in the trainee video for two keyframes in the trainer video.
Examiner has since included a prior art US 20220057856 A1 to SANKHLA and could refer to art like US 11727726 B2 to Amitai for a person with ordinary skills in art to find comparison between a first video of movements of a first person and second video of a second person while taking into account various mismatches between the frames (first frames) of the first video and the frames (second frames) of the second video. 35USC103 is maintained.
Following traversals/Remark are retained as a summarized from prior comments so as to address apriority varied interpretations. This is also answering proactively some of the new questions that may arise because of current arguments:
Applicant's arguments/amendments filed on April 21, 2025 have been considered.
Upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made as necessitated by amendments changing the scope of the claims.
Some of examiner’s response may cite a different portions of an applied reference but do not go further and merely elaborates upon, what is taught in the previously cited portion of a reference. Thus those rejection not constituting a new ground of rejection.
35USC101
Applicant on page 14 of arguments/remark indicated that “ Unlike prior art or traditional manual coaching, the claimed invention enables automatic feedback generation based on frame-level analysis across several performance aspects, including e.g., motion accuracy (similarity), timing, and style (motion dynamics). These are technical implementations that optimize training efficiency and cannot be achieved by generic computer functionality”.
Applicant on page 15 asserted that the claims recite significantly more than the alleged abstract idea. Following the rationale in BASCOM v. AT&T, even if the individual components were known, the non-generic arrangement and ordered combination of trainer video segmentation, performance scoring, and feedback generation defines an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(I) (citing BASCOM): ("The inventive concept inquiry requires more than recognizing that each claim element, by itself, was known in the art....[A]n inventive concept can be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces.").
The Examiner respectfully traverses and finds the recitation as a use of "generic computer components" without steps that defines a specific technical solution for facilitating motor learning through computer vision and automated feedback. The abstract idea of mental process of observation and evaluation together with certain methods of organizing human activity of managing personal behavior applied in a “particular technological environment”. This does not appear to be improving the machined such that it run faster, use less power, and/or be manufactured more cheaply.
Following the rationale in BASCOM v. AT&T, as highlighted by applicant, it is found that though the individual components were known, the arrangement and ordered combination of trainer video segmentation, performance scoring, and feedback generation by any special manner or improving the computer functionalities. Furthermore, the segmenting and candidate frame comparison could be well-known, routine, and conventional given the limited disclosure in their specification in regard to how make and/or use them, which is the Berkheimer finding that they don’t constitute “significantly more” than their claimed abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is not overcoming the requirements of 35 U.S.C. §101.
35USC103
Applicant on page 15-16 of argument/remarks 4/21/2025 asserted that the prior art Thielen adapts a content presentation based on passive viewer engagement behavior, but not based on viewer’s motor performance or progress. Examiner however finds art Thielen in paragraph 0035 defining, “An ‘ability’ refers to a person's perceptual or motor functions. Most abilities are a combination of perceptual and motor functions and are referred to as psychomotor abilities”.
The art Thielen at paragraph 0236 illustrates the at stage 1512, the person's attempts are observed and measured for proficiency. While a human coach may observe and evaluate a person's attempts, in embodiments described in this document, a computerized mechanism performed the observation and evaluation automatically. This may be done, at least in part, by using motion capture, error signatures, verbal/audio feedback, or some visual feedback mechanism. Hence a person with ordinary skills in art understands this to be a continual progression of automatic evaluation of participant’s action through an active trainee engagement by using motion capture.
Applicant on page 17-20 of argument/remarks 4/21/2025 asserted the art Thielen does not teach or suggest at least i) Segmenting a trainer's performance into discrete segments for comparative skill analysis; ii) Receiving a selection of the user of a particular segment; iii) Receiving a trainee video comprising at least one trainee move; iv) Processing the trainee's motion data "with respect to at least one corresponding move included in the selected segment" to assess a performance score; and v) Based on the segment performance score, generating at least one feedback. Examiner respectfully traverses and emphasizes that prior art teaches Thielen (Para 0280-0290) is presenting a video selection module to select a video segment from a plurality of video segments, the plurality of video segments include a content of demonstrations of a skill, in that particular embodiment of user has become inattentive by evaluating various trainee skills as highlighted in other parts of the art disclosure. A user monitor module obtain evaluates such abilities or skills with a biometric value in a video segment as compared to be or not to be violating the threshold value.
Examiner contends that though focused on attention management, the art Thielen as understood by a person with ordinary skills in art, is basically connected to some structured core trainee evaluation like motor skill elements with some motor function like finger tapping (Para 0287) as required by the claimed subject matter.
Applicant has further correctly pointed out that office action illustrates and appreciates the examiner's agreement that Thielen does not teach "process[ing] at least one trainee move with respect to at least one corresponding move included in the selected segment to obtain a segment performance score, ". However examiner would like to emphasize that though the office action highlights art Thielen not disclosing segmenting the trainer's video based on a selectable motion units with multiple consecutive video segment presentations, nevertheless the art teaches that certain skills may vary as the video monitoring progresses from one stage to next with demonstrably differing skill values and could easily be segmented when needed, as required by the recitation of claims.
In one of argument on Pages 21-26 the applicant argues that the secondary prior art Chuang does not disclose amended claim 31 now defining processing of a trainee move done by selecting at least one candidate frame from the trainee move and comparing it to at least one keyframe of the trainer move included in a selected segment. Chuang relies entirely on time-series acceleration data collected from wearable sensors and does not capture, segment, or analyze video frames of the trainee's motion. No keyframes of a trainer video are defined or used, and no candidate trainee frames are selected for visual comparison. There is no capture or processing of a trainee video, and no trainee "move" defined visually. Instead, Chuang applies a dynamic time warping algorithm to sequences of acceleration vectors, not to visual representations of movement. As such, the amended claim limitation is neither taught nor suggested by Chuang.
Examiner respectfully traverses and highlights that the prior art Chuang (Para 0035-0040, course video for processors; Fig.2,3 ) illustrates that learner exercise data includes multiple learner sample points to include multiple evaluating parametric values at specific points collected from the wearable sensor before even a course video is played. This video could well be segmented and it is known in art that each learner candidate point or a point in a frame of a trainee move could be compared to at least one keyframe point of a coach trainer move that may include a selected segment of specific frame of the course video (since paragraph 0038 of art teaching identifying of videos). As such a corresponding learner or trainee exercise compared to coach trainer exercise, data can be obtained from a learners perspective in accordance to an identified frame number of the course video (as in paragraph 0036). it can be known that each learner sample point of prior art corresponds to which coach sample point according to the frame number and the obtained learner exercise data to trainee moves wholly corresponds to the course video.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SADARUZ ZAMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3137. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am to 5pm CST.
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 on (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.
/S.Z/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
March 15, 2026
/XUAN M THAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715