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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claim 15 is directed to a method (i.e., a process), claims 1-14 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine), and claim 16 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable storage medium (i.e., a machine). Accordingly, claims 1-16 are all within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A - Prong One:
Regarding Prong One of Step 2A, the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) certain methods of organizing human activity, b) mental processes, and/or c) mathematical concepts.
Representative independent claim 15 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 15 recites:
15. A method for controlling a body shape management system, comprising: acquiring information about an actual body shape of a user and information about a target body shape of the user that he/she wants to have after a lapse of a set period; displaying at least an avatar representing the acquired target body shape of the user on a monitor; calculating at least one plan for a behavioral item that the user should perform during the set period based on the actual body shape of the user and the target body shape of the user that he/she wants to have after the lapse of the set period; and outputting the calculated at least one plan.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute “a mental process” because acquiring information about an actual body shape of a user and information about a target body shape of the user that he/she wants to have after a lapse of a set period; calculating at least one plan for a behavioral item that the user should perform during the set period based on the actual body shape of the user and the target body shape of the user that he/she wants to have after the lapse of the set period; and outputting the calculated at least one plan amount to observations/evaluations/judgments/analyses that can, at the currently claimed high level of generality, be practically performed in the human mind or via pen and paper.
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. It must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
The limitations of claims 1, 15, and 16, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a system, units, a monitor, a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, a control program, and a computer to perform the limitations, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. 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 claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the system, units, monitor, non-transitory computer readable storage medium, control program, and computer are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of acquiring information, displaying information, performing calculations, and outputting information) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP § 2106.05). Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Claims 2-14 are ultimately dependent from Claim(s) 1 and include all the limitations of Claim(s) 1. Therefore, claim(s) 2-14 recite the same abstract idea. Claims 2-14 describe further limitations regarding editing the avatar, acquiring a plan, giving preference to incorporating an exercise item and a meal included in the predetermined plan, a schedule of the user, calculating at least one plan for a behavioral item, displaying the avatar, calculating the predicted body shape of the user, recalculating at least one plan for a behavioral item, and displaying the plan and schedule. These are all just further describing the abstract idea recited in claim 1, without adding significantly more.
The claims do 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 amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B, independent claims 1, 15, and 16 do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for reasons the same as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations directed to acquiring information, all of which the Examiner submits merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea or are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality), the Examiner further submits that such steps are not unconventional as they merely consist of receiving or transmitting data over a network. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
The dependent claims do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the dependent claims do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Therefore, claims 1-16 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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: “…unit configured to…” in claims 1 and 9 and “…unit is further configured to…“ in claim 3.
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 2-12 and 14 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.
Claims 2 and 6-8 recite the limitation "the avatar representing the actual body shape of the user" in lines 3 & 8-9 of claim 2, lines 2-3 of claim 6, lines 2-3 of claim 7, and lines 2-3 of claim 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the schedule" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 9-11 recite the limitation "the avatar representing the predicted body shape of the user" in lines 6-7 of claim 9, lines 2-3 of claim 10, and lines 2-3 of claim 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claims 2 and 3 recite the limitation "the avatar can be edited" in lines 4-5 of claim 2 and lines 9-10 of claim 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. It is unclear which “avatar” is being referred to here.
Claims 5 and 12 recite “at least one plan for a behavioral item that the user should perform during the set period.” However, this limitation is also recited in independent claim 1. As such, it is unclear if the “at least one plan…” in claims 5 and 12 is the same “at least one plan…” recited in claim 1, or different.
Claim 9 recites “a predicted body shape calculation unit” at line 2 and then recites “predicted body shape calculation unit on the monitor” at lines 7-8. It is unclear if the unit at line 2 is the same unit at lines 7-8, or if they are different.
Claim 4 incorporates the deficiencies of claims 3, through dependency, and is therefore also rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1-3 and 5-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 2021/0304865 A1).
(A) Referring to claim 1, Kim discloses A body shape management system comprising (abstract of Kim):
an acquisition unit configured to acquire information about an actual body shape of a user and information about a target body shape of the user that he/she wants to have after a lapse of a set period (para. 42, 45, 50, 85, & 86 of Kim; The user input device 120 may generate personal requirements, personal information, body shape information, and/or exercise information of the user based on a user input. The personal requirements are definitions of body characteristics that the user wants, such as, making a face look smaller or legs look longer. After the exercise is performed for a certain period of time, the exercise prescription apparatus 100 measures the user's current body shape using the body appearance measuring device (not illustrated). Then, the exercise prescription apparatus 100 predicts the future body shape after a predetermined period (e.g., 6 months) based on the initial body shape and the current body shape. The exercise prescription apparatus 100 compares the predicted future body shape and the target body shape to analyze the difference between the two body shapes.);
a display control unit configured to display at least an avatar representing the target body shape of the user acquired by the acquisition unit on a monitor (para. 17, 46-49, & 57 of Kim; The processor shapes and outputs at least one of the measured body shape, the future body shape, or the target body shape as an avatar. The processor 160 may output at least one target body shape candidate determined to be intuitively understood by the user as an avatar of 2D or 3D graphics. The output device 150 of the exercise prescription apparatus 100, which is for outputting information such as visual information, auditory information and/or tactile information, may include, for example, a display, a sound output module, and/or a tactile signal output module.);
a plan calculation unit configured to calculate at least one plan for a behavioral item that the user should perform during the set period based on the actual body shape of the user and the target body shape of the user that he/she wants to have after the lapse of the set period (Figs. 2A-2C, para. 24, 52, and 42 of Kim; The predicting a future body shape of the user includes predicting the future body shape of the user based on an exercise type, an exercise intensity, an exercise time, an exercise frequency, and an exercise period of the user. As illustrated in FIG. 2A, the processor 160 determines that exercise re-prescription is unnecessary when the predicted body shape matches the target body shape. As illustrated in FIG. 2B, the processor 160 determines that exercise re-prescription is necessary when there is a mismatch between the predicted body shape and the target body shape. Accordingly, the processor 160 re-prescribes an exercise guide based on the user's current body shape information and target body shape. The processor 160 corrects the previous exercise prescription to minimize the difference between the predicted body shape and the target body shape as illustrated in FIG. 2C.); and
an output unit configured to output the at least one plan calculated by the plan calculation unit (Figs. 2A-2C, para. 40 & 50-52 of Kim; the processor 160 may determine an exercise prescription based on the user's initial body shape information and/or target body shape. The exercise prescription may include exercise type, exercise intensity, exercise time, exercise frequency, and exercise duration. Subsequently, the processor 160 may record a user's exercise activity in accordance with an exercise prescription using a position measurement sensor (not illustrated) and a heart rate measurement sensor (not illustrated). In addition, the processor 160 measures and records the change in the user's body shape over time through the body shape measurement device 110. The processor 160 measures the user's current body shape through the body shape measurement device 110 and generates and outputs the current body shape avatar using the measurement data. The processor 160 may compare the predicted future body shape with the set target body shape to analyze a difference in body shape and determines whether exercise re-prescription is necessary based on an analysis result. As illustrated in FIG. 2A, the processor 160 determines that exercise re-prescription is unnecessary when the predicted body shape matches the target body shape. As illustrated in FIG. 2B, the processor 160 determines that exercise re-prescription is necessary when there is a mismatch between the predicted body shape and the target body shape. Accordingly, the processor 160 re-prescribes an exercise guide based on the user's current body shape information and target body shape. The processor 160 corrects the previous exercise prescription to minimize the difference between the predicted body shape and the target body shape as illustrated in FIG. 2C.).
(B) Referring to claim 2, Kim discloses wherein the display control unit displays the avatar representing the actual body shape of the user on the monitor in such a manner that the avatar can be edited, and the acquisition unit acquires the information about the target body shape of the user that he/she wants to have after the lapse of the set period based on the editing made to the avatar representing the actual body shape of the user displayed on the monitor (para. 17, 49, 57, and 60 of Kim).
(C) Referring to claim 3, Kim discloses wherein the acquisition unit is further configured to acquire, in addition to the information about the actual body shape of the user, a predetermined plan for the behavioral item that the user should perform during the set period, when the predetermined plan is acquired by the acquisition unit, the display control unit displays an avatar representing a predicted body shape of the user on the monitor in such a manner that the avatar can be edited, the predicted body shape being a body shape which it is predicted the user will have after the lapse of the set period on a condition that the user behaves according to the predetermined plan, and the acquisition unit further acquires the information about the target body shape of the user that he/she wants to have after the lapse of the set period based on the editing made to the avatar representing the predicted body shape of the user displayed on the monitor (Figs. 2A-2C, para. 17, 42-52, 57, 60-64, 85, & 86 of Kim).
(D) Referring to claim 5, Kim discloses further comprising a database in which a schedule of the user during the set period is stored, wherein the plan calculation unit calculates at least one plan for a behavioral item that the user should perform during the set period based on, in addition to the actual body shape of the user and the target body shape of the user that he/she wants to have after the lapse of the set period, the schedule of the user during the set period stored in the database (para. 42, 45, 50-52, 58, & 59 of Kim).
(E) Referring to claim 6, Kim discloses wherein the display control unit further displays the avatar representing the actual body shape of the user on the monitor (para. 46 & 47 and Fig. 1 of Kim).
(F) Referring to claim 7, Kim discloses wherein the display control unit superimposes the avatar representing the actual body shape of the user on the avatar representing the target body shape of the user on the monitor (para. 46 & 47 of Kim).
(G) Referring to claim 8, Kim discloses wherein the display control unit displays the avatar representing the actual body shape of the user and the avatar representing the target body shape of the user in an alternate manner (para. 25, 47 & 57 of Kim).
(H) Referring to claim 9, Kim discloses further comprising a predicted body shape calculation unit configured to calculate the predicted body shape of the user after the lapse of the set period according to a change in the actual body shape of the user acquired by acquisition unit, wherein the display control unit further displays the avatar representing the predicted body shape of the user calculated by predicted body shape calculation unit on the monitor (para. 18, 21, 47, 50, 51, & 61-63 of Kim).
(I) Referring to claim 10, Kim discloses wherein the display control unit superimposes the avatar representing the predicted body shape of the user on the avatar representing the target body shape of the user on the monitor (para. 25, 46 & 47 of Kim).
(J) Referring to claim 11, Kim discloses wherein the display control unit displays the avatar representing the predicted body shape of the user and the avatar representing the target body shape of the user in an alternate manner (para. 45-47 & 57 of Kim).
(K) Referring to claim 12, Kim discloses wherein the plan calculation unit recalculates at least one plan for a behavioral item that the user should perform during the set period based on a difference between the predicted body shape and the target body shape (para. 80, 81, 86, and 87 of Kim).
(L) Referring to claim 13, Kim discloses wherein the output unit displays the at least one plan calculated by the plan calculation unit on the monitor (Figs. 2A-2C and para. 52 of Kim).
(M) Referring to claim 14, Kim discloses wherein the output unit displays a plan selected from the at least one plan calculated by the plan calculation unit along with the schedule of the user on the monitor (para. 42, 50, 58, and 73 of Kim).
(N) Referring to claim 15, Kim discloses A method for controlling a body shape management system, comprising (abstract and para. 48 of Kim):
acquiring information about an actual body shape of a user and information about a target body shape of the user that he/she wants to have after a lapse of a set period (para. 42, 45, 50, 85, & 86 of Kim; The user input device 120 may generate personal requirements, personal information, body shape information, and/or exercise information of the user based on a user input. The personal requirements are definitions of body characteristics that the user wants, such as, making a face look smaller or legs look longer. After the exercise is performed for a certain period of time, the exercise prescription apparatus 100 measures the user's current body shape using the body appearance measuring device (not illustrated). Then, the exercise prescription apparatus 100 predicts the future body shape after a predetermined period (e.g., 6 months) based on the initial body shape and the current body shape. The exercise prescription apparatus 100 compares the predicted future body shape and the target body shape to analyze the difference between the two body shapes.);
displaying at least an avatar representing the acquired target body shape of the user on a monitor (para. 17, 46-49, & 57 of Kim; The processor shapes and outputs at least one of the measured body shape, the future body shape, or the target body shape as an avatar. The processor 160 may output at least one target body shape candidate determined to be intuitively understood by the user as an avatar of 2D or 3D graphics. The output device 150 of the exercise prescription apparatus 100, which is for outputting information such as visual information, auditory information and/or tactile information, may include, for example, a display, a sound output module, and/or a tactile signal output module.);
calculating at least one plan for a behavioral item that the user should perform during the set period based on the actual body shape of the user and the target body shape of the user that he/she wants to have after the lapse of the set period (Figs. 2A-2C, para. 24, 52, and 42 of Kim; The predicting a future body shape of the user includes predicting the future body shape of the user based on an exercise type, an exercise intensity, an exercise time, an exercise frequency, and an exercise period of the user. As illustrated in FIG. 2A, the processor 160 determines that exercise re-prescription is unnecessary when the predicted body shape matches the target body shape. As illustrated in FIG. 2B, the processor 160 determines that exercise re-prescription is necessary when there is a mismatch between the predicted body shape and the target body shape. Accordingly, the processor 160 re-prescribes an exercise guide based on the user's current body shape information and target body shape. The processor 160 corrects the previous exercise prescription to minimize the difference between the predicted body shape and the target body shape as illustrated in FIG. 2C.); and
outputting the calculated at least one plan (Figs. 2A-2C, para. 40 & 50-52 of Kim; the processor 160 may determine an exercise prescription based on the user's initial body shape information and/or target body shape. The exercise prescription may include exercise type, exercise intensity, exercise time, exercise frequency, and exercise duration. Subsequently, the processor 160 may record a user's exercise activity in accordance with an exercise prescription using a position measurement sensor (not illustrated) and a heart rate measurement sensor (not illustrated). In addition, the processor 160 measures and records the change in the user's body shape over time through the body shape measurement device 110. The processor 160 measures the user's current body shape through the body shape measurement device 110 and generates and outputs the current body shape avatar using the measurement data. The processor 160 may compare the predicted future body shape with the set target body shape to analyze a difference in body shape and determines whether exercise re-prescription is necessary based on an analysis result. As illustrated in FIG. 2A, the processor 160 determines that exercise re-prescription is unnecessary when the predicted body shape matches the target body shape. As illustrated in FIG. 2B, the processor 160 determines that exercise re-prescription is necessary when there is a mismatch between the predicted body shape and the target body shape. Accordingly, the processor 160 re-prescribes an exercise guide based on the user's current body shape information and target body shape. The processor 160 corrects the previous exercise prescription to minimize the difference between the predicted body shape and the target body shape as illustrated in FIG. 2C.).
(O) Referring to claim 16, Kim discloses A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a control program for causing a computer to perform (para. 44 & 91 of Kim):
a process for acquiring information about an actual body shape of a user and information about a target body shape of the user that he/she wants to have after a lapse of a set period (para. 42, 45, 50, 85, & 86 of Kim; The user input device 120 may generate personal requirements, personal information, body shape information, and/or exercise information of the user based on a user input. The personal requirements are definitions of body characteristics that the user wants, such as, making a face look smaller or legs look longer. After the exercise is performed for a certain period of time, the exercise prescription apparatus 100 measures the user's current body shape using the body appearance measuring device (not illustrated). Then, the exercise prescription apparatus 100 predicts the future body shape after a predetermined period (e.g., 6 months) based on the initial body shape and the current body shape. The exercise prescription apparatus 100 compares the predicted future body shape and the target body shape to analyze the difference between the two body shapes.);
a process for displaying at least an avatar representing the acquired target body shape of the user on a monitor (para. 17, 46-49, & 57 of Kim; The processor shapes and outputs at least one of the measured body shape, the future body shape, or the target body shape as an avatar. The processor 160 may output at least one target body shape candidate determined to be intuitively understood by the user as an avatar of 2D or 3D graphics. The output device 150 of the exercise prescription apparatus 100, which is for outputting information such as visual information, auditory information and/or tactile information, may include, for example, a display, a sound output module, and/or a tactile signal output module.);
a process for calculating at least one plan for a behavioral item that the user should perform during the set period based on the actual body shape of the user and the target body shape of the user that he/she wants to have after the lapse of the set period (Figs. 2A-2C, para. 24, 52, and 42 of Kim; The predicting a future body shape of the user includes predicting the future body shape of the user based on an exercise type, an exercise intensity, an exercise time, an exercise frequency, and an exercise period of the user. As illustrated in FIG. 2A, the processor 160 determines that exercise re-prescription is unnecessary when the predicted body shape matches the target body shape. As illustrated in FIG. 2B, the processor 160 determines that exercise re-prescription is necessary when there is a mismatch between the predicted body shape and the target body shape. Accordingly, the processor 160 re-prescribes an exercise guide based on the user's current body shape information and target body shape. The processor 160 corrects the previous exercise prescription to minimize the difference between the predicted body shape and the target body shape as illustrated in FIG. 2C.); and
a process for outputting the calculated at least one plan (Figs. 2A-2C, para. 40 & 50-52 of Kim; the processor 160 may determine an exercise prescription based on the user's initial body shape information and/or target body shape. The exercise prescription may include exercise type, exercise intensity, exercise time, exercise frequency, and exercise duration. Subsequently, the processor 160 may record a user's exercise activity in accordance with an exercise prescription using a position measurement sensor (not illustrated) and a heart rate measurement sensor (not illustrated). In addition, the processor 160 measures and records the change in the user's body shape over time through the body shape measurement device 110. The processor 160 measures the user's current body shape through the body shape measurement device 110 and generates and outputs the current body shape avatar using the measurement data. The processor 160 may compare the predicted future body shape with the set target body shape to analyze a difference in body shape and determines whether exercise re-prescription is necessary based on an analysis result. As illustrated in FIG. 2A, the processor 160 determines that exercise re-prescription is unnecessary when the predicted body shape matches the target body shape. As illustrated in FIG. 2B, the processor 160 determines that exercise re-prescription is necessary when there is a mismatch between the predicted body shape and the target body shape. Accordingly, the processor 160 re-prescribes an exercise guide based on the user's current body shape information and target body shape. The processor 160 corrects the previous exercise prescription to minimize the difference between the predicted body shape and the target body shape as illustrated in FIG. 2C.).
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2021/0304865 A1) in view of Langheier et al. (US 2012/0094258 A1).
(A) Referring to claim 4, Kim does not disclose wherein the plan calculation unit gives preference to incorporating an exercise item and a meal included in the predetermined plan into the calculated plan over an exercise item and a meal that are not included in the predetermined plan.
Langheier discloses wherein the plan calculation unit gives preference to incorporating an exercise item and a meal included in the predetermined plan into the calculated plan over an exercise item and a meal that are not included in the predetermined plan (para. 59 of Langheier).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the calculation unit of Kim to include the aforementioned features of Langheier. The motivation for doing so would have been to meet the user’s caloric and nutrient needs (para. 59 of Langheier).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited but not applied prior art teaches a body shape management system using a real avatar and method thereof (KR-100784835-B1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LENA NAJARIAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7072. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30 am-6 pm.
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, Mamon Obeid can be reached at (571)270-1813. 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.
/LENA NAJARIAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3687