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 § 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.
Claim 11 is 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 11 recites the limitation "each supporting structure" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Furthermore, it is unclear whether one or more supporting structures are required by the claim, as the term “each” implies more than one supporting structure, though a number has not been specified. This renders the metes and bounds of the claim unclear.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Neuhaus et al. (US PGPub, 2022/0062738).
Regarding claim 1, Nauhaus et al. shows the same invention as claimed, including: A lifting rack system, comprising: a lifting rack assembly (rack 105) comprising at least one image capturing device (camera system 112) coupled with at least one computer operatively associated with the lifting rack assembly (controller 402, para. 56: “The controller 402 may include one or more processors and non-transitory computer readable media storing program instructions executable by the one or more processors to perform the various operations described herein.”), wherein the at least one computer is configured to provide exercise feedback regarding a user of the lifting rack assembly performing an exercise (para. 21: “The display screen 110 can show a dashboard that provides real-time information and feedback relating to form, trajectory, velocity, force, range of motion, repetition count, targets, etc. for the user during the exercise. The display screen 110 may also be controlled to show coaching videos or alerts.”).
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.
Claim(s) 2-6 and 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neuhaus et al. (US PGPub, 2022/0062738) in view of Lari et al. (US PGPub. 2016/0038088).
Regarding claim 2, Neuhaus shows wherein the exercise feedback is The platform 102 and the camera system 112 are configured to provide information indicative of a position of the user relative to the apparatus 100, biomechanical alignment and dimensions of the user, and other data that can be used for control of the apparatus 100 and for providing feedback and/or post-workout reports to the user, a coach/trainer, and/or to a manager of a fitness facility.” And para. 26: “The camera system 112 may be configured to determine the pose which consists of the user's joint angles for specific joints, such as the knee and hip, or the body shape, such as the curvature of the back. The camera system 112 can determine various other anthropometric measurements, for example height, length of various body parts, etc…Data from the camera system 112 can be used to control the force vector applied by the apparatus 100 to improve strength training efficiency and safety, to provide real-time form correction feedback to a user (e.g., via display screen 110), and to produce post-exercise reports, videos, coaching tips, exercise programs, etc. to be provided to the user or coach.”).
As indicated by
Lari et al., from the same field of endeavor, teaches that it is known in the art to determine user body motions using wearable sensors, or camera-based system (Lari et al. para. 57 “many of these metrics could be derived from camera based vision analytics of a specific user.”). Lari et al. teaches that it is known to analyze and display user motions using a wireframe model (Lari et al. Para. 50: “The user interface of the external computing unit may allow the user to interact with the processed data, such as to view representations of motion from different angles and speeds, to compare motions against a baseline, to compare motions to those of other users, etc. In all of these interactions, comparative metrics may be extracted from the data, such as for comparing speeds, accelerations, forms/postures, etc. across various measurements either from the same of between users. These interactions may be in the form of visual models, numerical/graphical models, or equivalent. Captured motions and motion standards may be modified by the user (or a trainer, etc.) by a number of methods including, but not limited to: direct scaling of a motions coordinates and/or time points, modification of key extracted motion elements of subsets of a motion (i.e. angles, distances, speeds, accelerations), extension of a motion beyond its captured range via extrapolation (or equivalent) or by manual modification (i.e. wireframe node or element drag and drop for at least one time frame in a motion profile),”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to use a wireframe model as taught by Lari et al. on the device of Neuhaus et al. Doing so provides the predictable result of using an art-recognized method to generate the feedback for displaying to the user. Providing a wireframe model with nodes representing the joints of the exercising user as taught by Lari et al. provides the predictable result of practically implementing Neuhaus et al.’s real-time form-correction feedback by detecting the nodes at a user’s joints, estimating the exercise pose, and comparing to a reference pose as is commonly known in the art. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Neuhaus et al. as taught by Lari et al. to obtain the invention as claimed.
Regarding claim 3, Neuhaus et al. does not expressly show, but Lari et al. teaches wherein the wireframe model includes a plurality of nodes, wherein each node represents a body portion of said user (Lari et al. para. 50, quoted above in the rejection of claim 2). See rationale in claim 2 above for combining Lari et al. and Neuhaus et al.
Regarding claim 4, Neuhaus et al. does not expressly show, but Lari et al. teaches wherein the wireframe model can represent an outline of a user of the lifting rack assembly on a user interface operatively associated with the at least one computer (Lari et al. para. 50 “visual models”, full quote in the rejection of claim 2 above). See rationale in claim 2 above for combining Lari et al. and Neuhaus et al.
Regarding claim 5, Neuhaus et al. shows wherein the at least one computer is configured to determine one or more reference angles between a respective body portion and a supporting surface during the exercise (Neuhaus et al. para. 26: “The camera system 112 may be configured to determine the pose which consists of the user's joint angles for specific joints, such as the knee and hip”).
Regarding claim 6, Neuhaus et al. does not show but Lari et al. teaches wherein the at least one computer is configured to determine a plurality of exercise routines based on recordings of the captured wireframe models, whereby each computer is configured to display each determined exercise routine on the user interface (Lari para. 101: “In the case of physical therapy for rehabilitation of walking one embodiment would comprise a series of devices worn on both legs of a patient, secondary computing device(s) which analyzes a motion standard, and a physical therapist who manually adjusts the captured motion to create a unique new motion standard. Sensors would track and capture the motion of the patient while walking patient in a pre-rehabilitated state. The pre-rehabilitated motion of the patient may then be analyzed and converted to a graphical wireframe model of the captured motion by a secondary computing device to create a pre-rehabilitated motion standard. A physical therapist or equivalent may then directly manipulate the patient's wireframe pre-rehabilitated motion standard to create a new motion standard which may be overlaid with the original pre-rehabilitated motion standard or overlaid in real-time with additional captured motion of the patient. The physical therapist may create multiple unique new motion standards which increment towards a desired motion allowing the patient to gradually work towards reaching such an ideal motion and may compensate for unforeseen changes in the patients motion throughout the rehabilitation process.”). See rationale in claim 2 above for combining Lari et al. and Neuhaus et al.
Regarding claim 12, Neuhaus et al. shows wherein the at least one computer is configured to verify a load on a plurality of supporting structure, each supporting structure operatively associated with an actuator operatively associated with the at least one computer (Neuhaus et al. para. 25: “The platform 102 may include a single continuous plate that the user stands on, or a split plate that includes two equally-sized plates (one for the left foot of the user and one for the right foot of the user). The plate or plates are provided with force sensors at the corners of the plate(s). The force sensors can determine the total load on the plate and the center of pressure on the plate, either overall in the single-plate embodiment or independently for each foot in the split plate embodiment. In other embodiments, the platform 102 is provided with a force sensing mat that includes load cells distributed throughout to provide force data exerted locally at a large number of positions on the platform 102. The force sensor measurements can be used by a controller to determine the stability of the user and how the user performs the exercise. For example, the data from the force sensors can be processed to detect loss of balance or compensatory motions, and may be used to trigger a release of a load for safety purposes or to provide feedback on form to a user or coach/trainer.”).
Regarding claim 13, Neuhaus et al. shows wherein the load verification triggers activation of the associated actuator based in part on the exercise feedback (para. 25: “For example, the data from the force sensors can be processed to detect loss of balance or compensatory motions, and may be used to trigger a release of a load for safety purposes or to provide feedback on form to a user or coach/trainer.”).
Regarding claim 14, Neuhaus et al. shows wherein each supporting structure is a bar support or a safety bar (Neuhaus et al. Fig. 1, depicting rack 105 with bar catches 107 and safety rails 108).
Regarding claim 15, Neuhaus et al. shows further comprising one or more remote lifting rack assemblies, wherein the at least one computer is configured to provide a plurality of logistical data associated with each lifting rack assembly, and wherein the plurality of logistics comprises the exercise feedback coupled with and a load verification and a position of one or more exercise equipment associated with each lifting rack assembly (para. 61: “As shown in FIG. 4, the controller 402 may be communicable a remote server 404, for example via the internet. The remote server 404 is configured to store various information to provide additional functionality, customizability, options, programs, illumination patterns, workout plans, exercises, etc. to enable use of the lighting device 120. For example, the remote server 404 may provide additional storage space to enable storage of a large number of exercises and associated desired pacings (e.g., associated data objects {T.sub.down, T.sub.bottom, T.sub.up, T.sub.top}). The remote server 404 can be configured to enable addition of new exercises and desired pacings to the capabilities of the controller 402 and/or modification of existing exercises and desired pacings stored locally at the controller 402. The remote server 404 may also store user-specific data, for example a user profile that can facilitate user-specific customization or allow a user to track workouts over time.”).
Regarding claim 16, Neuhaus et al. shows wherein the at least one computer is configured to determining the load verification by sensing a load on a plurality of supporting structures associated with the one or more exercise equipment for each lift rack assembly, each supporting structure operatively associated with an actuator operatively associated with the at least one computer (Neuhaus et al. para. 25: “The platform 102 may include a single continuous plate that the user stands on, or a split plate that includes two equally-sized plates (one for the left foot of the user and one for the right foot of the user). The plate or plates are provided with force sensors at the corners of the plate(s). The force sensors can determine the total load on the plate and the center of pressure on the plate, either overall in the single-plate embodiment or independently for each foot in the split plate embodiment. In other embodiments, the platform 102 is provided with a force sensing mat that includes load cells distributed throughout to provide force data exerted locally at a large number of positions on the platform 102. The force sensor measurements can be used by a controller to determine the stability of the user and how the user performs the exercise. For example, the data from the force sensors can be processed to detect loss of balance or compensatory motions, and may be used to trigger a release of a load for safety purposes or to provide feedback on form to a user or coach/trainer.”).
Regarding claim 17, further a wireless communication associated with each lifting rack assembly whereby the user of each lifting rack assembly can communicate in real time (para. 20: “Such communication may be direct wireless communication (e.g., Bluetooth, WiFi) between the apparatus 100 and the personal device, or indirectly via a cloud server in communication with both the personal device and the apparatus 100 via the Internet.”).
Claim(s) 7-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neuhaus et al. (US PGPub, 2022/0062738) in view of Lari et al. (US PGPub. 2016/0038088) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Rothman (US PGPub. 2018/0064992). Neuhaus et al. in view of Lari et al. describes the invention substantially as claimed, but does not show:
Regarding claim 7, wherein the at least one computer is configured to determine an indication of spotting based in part on the exercise feedback, and wherein the indication of spotting triggers the at least one computer to activate a supporting structure by way of an actuator operatively associated with the at least one computer.
Rothman, from the same field of endeavor, teaches that it is known in the art to use a camera system to initiate a spot for a weightlifting user (Rothman para. 71: “The weightlifter's 32 position and the position of the barbell 30 will be monitored by the camera vision system 208. This information will be relayed to the processor 34 which will perform the logic in the system and determine what actions to perform. The processor 34 will relay signals to the motor controller 36 which will control the motor 16. The position, velocity, and acceleration of the motor and the force it is applying (to assist/spot the weightlifter 32) will be fed back to the processor via the encoder 22 and the load cells 26.”, para. 73: “The camera vision system 208 attached to the main frame/assembly 10 continue to track the barbell 30 and activate the belt/rope spotting mechanism 42 when a spot is needed.”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to include the camera-based spotting system of Rothman et al. on the system of Neuhaus et al. Doing so provides the predictable result of ensuring user safety by providing a spotting feature so that the user can lift close to their maximum without a need for another user. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Neuhaus et al. to obtain the invention as claimed.
Regarding claim 8, Neuhaus et al. does not show but Rothman et al. teaches wherein the indication of spotting is a visual clue detected by the at least one image capturing device (Rothman para. 71 and 73). See rationale in claim 7 above for combining Neuhaus et al. and Rothman et al.
Regarding claim 9, Neuhaus et al. does not show but Rothman et al. teaches wherein the visual clue comprises movement of one or more body parts of said user (Rothman et al. para. 71 “The weightlifter’s 32 position and the position of the barbell 30 will be monitored by the camera vision system 208.”). See rationale in claim 7 above for combining Neuhaus et al. and Rothman et al.
Regarding claim 11, Neuhaus et al. does not show but Rothman et al. teaches wherein each supporting structure is a bar support or a safety bar (Rothman et al. Figure 8). See rationale in claim 7 above for combining Neuhaus et al. and Rothman et al.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neuhaus et al. (US PGPub, 2022/0062738) in view of Lari et al. (US PGPub. 2016/0038088) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Rothman (US PGPub. 2018/0064992) as applied to claims 7 and 8 above, and further in view of Greenhill et al. (US PGPub. 2013/0190143).
Regarding claim 10, Neuhaus in view of Lari et al. and Rothman does not expressly show wherein the indication of spotting is a voice command received by the at least one computer.
Greenhill et al., from the same field of endeavor, teaches that it is known in the art to spot a weightlifting user with a voice command (Greenhill et al. para. 46: “a voice activated command that may be transmitted by the user verbalizing a command to a receive, such as a microphone 410 (FIG. 7). When the user inputs a command for assistance, the programmable logic and generation control system controls the linear motor to add resistance or lifting force to the weight 226 in the pre-programmed amount indicated in display 408 of FIG. 8 set by the user prior to starting the routine.”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to include a voice command input so that the user may activate a spot if needed. Neuhaus et al. already describes a voice-command (Neuhaus para. 43 “The illumination pattern can be initiated in response to a user input, for example by voice command (in an embodiment where a microphone is included in the apparatus 100.”) Doing so provides the predictable result of ensuring user safety while using the system. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Neuhaus et al. in view of Greenhill et al. to obtain the invention as claimed.
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neuhaus et al. (US PGPub, 2022/0062738) in view of Lari et al. (US PGPub. 2016/0038088) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Levinson et al. (US PGPub. 2021/0174268). Neuhaus et al. in view of Lari et al. does not show, but Levinson et al. teaches, regarding claim 18: wherein the computer is configured to collect data on each user, including how much exercise time each user on the supporting surface and how much queue time each user is in a queue to enter the supporting surface.
Levinson et al., from the same field of endeavor, teaches that it is known in the art to manage exercise equipment with a computer system, the computer configured to collect data on each user, including how much exercise time each user on the support surface and how much queue time each user is in a queue to enter the support surface (Levinson et al. para. 40: “some embodiments, the user device may be a mobile unit and may include a mobile application that may perform at least the following functions, in real-time: (a) display the availability and current and historical peak use times of an equipment to the user and the facility manager; (b) enable the user to add themselves to a virtual “waiting or queue” on the app and receive a notification when the equipment is available; (c) suggest alternative equipment and its location when a desired equipment is already in use; (d) capture workout metrics and provide tutorials; (e) enable the user to share his/her location with friends within the facility, etc”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to include the equipment management system of Levinson et al. on the device of Neuhaus et al. Doing so provides the predictable result of managing equipment so that gym users can efficiently use the facility. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Neuhaus et al. as taught by Levinson et al. to obtain the invention as claimed.
Regarding claim 19, Neuhaus et al. does not show but Levinson et al. teaches wherein the computer is configured to communicate via the wireless communication to instruct a progression of the exercise and to which of the plurality of remote lifting rack assembles each user should enter to minimize an overall queue time of the system (Levinson et al. para. 40). See rationale in claim 18 above for combining Neuhaus and Levinson.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See form PTO-892 for cited art of interest.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUNDHARA M GANESAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3340. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30AM-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 on (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.
/SUNDHARA M GANESAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3784