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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/1/2026 concerning the prior art have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states that the added limitation of “a first indicator indicating an exercise posture reference range indicated by a plurality of simultaneously displayed exercise posture reference ranges corresponding to different exercise posture evaluation levels for the selected exercise program” is not taught by Aragones (Remarks, 7/1/2026, pg. 12). It is respectfully submitted that the limb specific shadows detailed in the office action below meets the limitation as claimed. As such, the rejections under the prior art remain appropriate.
Applicant's arguments filed 7/1/2026 concerning 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states the following (Remarks, 7/1/2026, pg. 13-15): “The Applicant respectfully submits that the, as amended, claim 1 is not directed merely to a mathematical concept, mental process, or generic display of exercise information. Rather, claim 1 recites a specific electronic-device architecture that operates with a wearable device to provide an improved exercise guidance interface and feedback system…Accordingly, even assuming for argument that some aspects of the claim involve determining posture information, amended claim 1 integrates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application. The claim uses wearable-device sensor data to generate a specifically structured visual guide object and to cause corresponding feedback through the wearable device. This amounts to significantly more than merely using generic computer components to collect, analyze, and display data. Therefore, amended claim 1 is patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. §101.”
It is respectfully submitted that, as claimed, claim 1 does disclose abstract concepts and the GUI merely acts as generic computing components. As claimed, the practical application stated does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. A greater explanation is present in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 in this Office Action. As such, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 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.
Concerning claim 1,
The following claimed limitation is considered to be indefinite: “determine, based comparison of exercise posture reference of the selected exercise program and measured exercise posture of the user determine using the sensor data, exercise posture evaluation information including an evaluation level of the measured exercise posture of the user and an exercise posture measurement value of the user.” Applicant states that “determining” is done twice in the claims in a manner that is unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art. The language of the claimed limitation quoted does not make sense, likely due to the phrasing/grammar of the text. For the purposes of examination, the above limitation is considered to be as follows: “based comparison of exercise posture reference of the selected exercise program and measured exercise posture of the user, determine, using the sensor data, exercise posture evaluation information including an evaluation level of the measured exercise posture of the user and an exercise posture measurement value of the user.” Claim 1 is rejected as it does not establish clear metes and bounds.
Concerning claim 19, see the rejection of claim 1.
Claims 2-18 and 20 are rejected as they are dependent on rejected claims 1 and 19, respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Regarding claim 1, analyzed as representative claim:
[Step 1] Claim(s) 1-20 are drawn to statutory categories of invention of machine or method.
[Step 2A — Prong 1] Regarding claim 1, the claim recites a series of steps which can practically be performed by one or more humans through mathematical concepts, and/or mental process (i.e. (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) (III). See underlined portions below.
Claim 1 recites:
An electronic device, comprising:
an input module, comprising input circuitry, configured to receive a user input for selection of an exercise program to be performed by a user of a wearable device;
a communication module, comprising communication circuitry, configured to receive, from the wearable device, sensor data comprising movement information of the user regarding an exercise to be performed by the user according to the selected exercise program;
at least one processor comprising processing circuitry and individually and/or collectively configured to:
determine, based comparison of exercise posture reference of the selected exercise program and measured exercise posture of the user determine using the sensor data, exercise posture evaluation information including an evaluation level of the measured exercise posture of the user and an exercise posture measurement value of the user,
generate a first visual guide object comprising an avatar object of which an operation to be displayed varies according to the measured exercise posture of the user and provides the exercise posture evaluation information, a first indicator indicating an exercise posture reference range indicated by a plurality of simultaneously displayed exercise posture reference ranges corresponding to different exercise posture evaluation levels for the selected exercise program, and at least one second indicator indicating the exercise posture measurement value positioned with reference to the first indicator, the at least one second indicator comprising a second indicator indicating an exercise posture measurement value based on a current exercise posture of the user,
control the communication module to transmit, to the wearable device, a feedback signal corresponding to the exercise posture evaluation information for the wearable device to output feedback to the user based on the feedback signal; and
a display module, comprising a display, configured to output a graphical user interface (GUI) on which the first visual guide object is to be displayed.
As indicated above, the “determine” limitation encompass, under broadest reasonable interpretation, limitation that can practically be mathematical concepts, and/or mental process. For example, a gym instructor could merely instruct the person exercising, provide them with the calculations specified, and guide them accordingly. In other words, the underlined portions could have been done by a gym instructor utilizing mathematical concepts, and/or mental process. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of organizing human activity through the establishment of instructions, then it falls within the “mathematical concepts, and/or mental process” grouping(s) of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim encompasses an abstract idea.
[Step 2A – Prong 2] The claim fails to recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim, under broadest reasonable interpretation, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Moreover, a wearable device with sensors and a display is a generic computing component (e.g., software/application), recited at a high level of generality, such that it amounts to no more than instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer and/or to implement the abstract idea in a computer environment, i.e., field of use. The claim does not recite (i) an improvement to the functionality of a computer or other technology or technical field (See MPEP 2106.05(a)), (ii) a “particular machine” to apply or use the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(b)), (iii) a particular transformation of an article to a different thing or state (See MPEP 2106.05(c)), or (iv) any other meaningful limitation (See MPEP 2106.05(e)). The additional claim limitations are NOT indicative of integration into a practical application as they add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the claim is directed to the abstract idea.
[Step 2B] As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer/implement the abstract idea in a computer environment and insignificant extra-solution activity. The Specification demonstrates that the wearable device with sensors and a display, which takes in an input, gathers data, and displays an output (MPEP 2106.05), is recited for its well- understood, routine, and conventional functionality (i.e., software/application), referring to the additional element in a manner that indicates that it is sufficiently well-known that the Specification does not need to describe the particulars of the additional element to satisfy enablement (See MPEP 2106.07(a)(III)(A)). Taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified abstract idea. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology and/or implements the use of a particular machine. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 19 is rejected for similar reasoning. Claim 19 fails to include additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept). Accordingly, claim 19 is also not patent eligible.
Claims 2-18 and 20 are dependent on claims 1 and 19 respectively, and therefore recite the same abstract idea noted above. While the dependent claims have a narrower scope than the independent claims, the claims fail to recite additional limitations that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more. Particularly, the additional limitations further define the insignificant extra-solution of evaluation of the mathematical concepts, and/or mental process and additional iterations on the existing abstract concepts. Furthermore, these additional limitations encompass the use of generic computing component (e.g., software/application), recited at a high level of generality, such that it amounts to no more than instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer and/or to implement the abstract idea in a computer environment, i.e., field of use. The dependent claims do not recite (i) an improvement to the functionality of a computer or other technology or technical field (See MPEP 2106.05(a)), (ii) a “particular machine” to apply or use the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(b)), (iii) a particular transformation of an article to a different thing or state (See MPEP 2106.05(c)), or (iv) any other meaningful limitation (See MPEP 2106.05(e)).
Accordingly, the dependent claims are directed to the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication 2012/0183940 A1 to Aragones et al. (hereinafter Aragones) in view of US Publication 2021/0121729 A1 to Kim et al. (hereinafter Kim).
Concerning claim 1,
Aragones discloses an electronic device, comprising: an input module, comprising input circuitry, configured to receive a user input for selection of an exercise program to be performed by a user of a wearable device (0036, 0038, Figure 1A);
a communication module, comprising communication circuitry, configured to receive, from the wearable device, sensor data comprising movement information of the user regarding an exercise to be performed by the user according to the selected exercise program (0038, 0047);
at least one processor comprising processing circuitry and individually and/or collectively configured to (0028-0029, Figure 1B): determine, based comparison of exercise posture reference of the selected exercise program and measured exercise posture of the user determine using the sensor data, exercise posture evaluation information including an evaluation level of the measured exercise posture of the user and an exercise posture measurement value of the user (0063, 0074, 0088),
generate a first visual guide object comprising an avatar object of which an operation to be displayed varies according to the measured exercise posture of the user and provides the exercise posture evaluation information (0088-0089), a first indicator (considered to be virtual shadow such as elements 1002A-C and 1102) indicating an exercise posture reference range indicated by a plurality of simultaneously displayed exercise posture reference ranges corresponding to different exercise posture evaluation levels for the selected exercise program (0085, Figure 10A-B, wherein elements 1002A-C are simultaneously displayed exercise posture reference ranges), and at least one second indicator (element 802) indicating the exercise posture measurement value positioned with reference to the first indicator, the at least one second indicator comprising a second indicator indicating an exercise posture measurement value based on a current exercise posture of the user (0063, 0074, 0088-0091, Figure 11); and
a display module, comprising a display, configured to output a graphical user interface (GUI) on which the first visual guide object is to be displayed (0031, 0071).
Aragones does not clearly disclose control the communication module to transmit, to the wearable device, a feedback signal corresponding to the exercise posture evaluation information for the wearable device to output feedback to the user based on the feedback signal (0072).
Kim teaches control the communication module to transmit, to the wearable device, a feedback signal corresponding to the exercise posture evaluation information for the wearable device to output feedback to the user based on the feedback signal (0050-0052).
It would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the wearable exercise assistance apparatus of Kim with the wearable guidance mechanism of Aragones as both concern wearable exercise aids. The direct feedback and assistance from Kim would allow for the wearable guidance mechanism from Aragones to guide the person exercising in a more direct manner, allowing for more effective teaching.
Concerning claim 2,
Aragones discloses the at least one second indicator comprises: a second indicator indicating an exercise posture measurement value based on a previous exercise posture of the user (0096, 0127).
Concerning claim 3,
Aragones discloses the second indicator indicating the exercise posture measurement value based on the previous exercise posture comprises: at least one of a maximum upper body tilt value of the user based on the previous exercise posture of the user or a maximum hip joint angle difference value between both hip joints of the user based on the previous exercise posture of the user (0077, 0079).
Concerning claim 4,
Aragones discloses at least one second indicator has a color to be indicated in the first visual guide object that is to vary based on an evaluation reference range to which the exercise posture measurement value indicated by the at least one second indicator belongs (0085, 0089).
Concerning claim 5,
Aragones discloses the first indicator indicates the exercise posture reference range for the selected exercise program (0085, 0089), and
the at least one second indicator indicates in real time the exercise posture measurement value of the user (0074, 0087-0088),
wherein, the at least one processor is configured so that when the exercise posture measurement value is in the exercise posture reference range indicated by the first indicator, the at least one second indicator is changed to a color corresponding to the exercise posture reference range (0085, 0089).
Concerning claim 6,
Aragones discloses the first indicator indicates a plurality of exercise posture reference ranges respectively corresponding to different exercise posture evaluation levels (0085).
Concerning claim 7,
Aragones discloses at least one third indicator indicating an angle range indicated by a fixed reference line (element 702) and an angle line of which an indication is changed based on an exercise posture measurement value of the user (element 804) (0076-0077, Figure 8).
Concerning claim 8,
Aragones discloses at least one third indicator has a color to be indicated in the first visual guide object that varies according to an evaluation reference range to which the exercise posture measurement value belongs (0076-0077, 0092, Figure 8, Figure 11, The third indicator has a color and overlaps with the shadow as shown in Figure 11. This is considered to be the third indicator indicated in the first visual guide object).
Concerning claim 9,
Aragones discloses at least one third indicator comprises at least one of: a third indicator indicating an angle range that is indicated by a reference line for an upper body tilt value of the user and an angle line corresponding to a maximum upper body tilt value of the user based on a previous exercise posture of the user; or
a third indicator indicating an angle range that is indicated by a reference line for a hip joint angle difference value between both hip joints of the user and an angle line corresponding to a maximum hip joint angle difference value between both hip joints of the user based on the previous exercise posture of the user (0072, 0076-0079, 0096, Figure 9, As broadly claimed, an angle line corresponding to a maximum upper body tilt value of the user can be any angle line at any percentage of the maximum upper body tilt value).
Concerning claim 10,
Aragones discloses the exercise posture measurement value corresponds to a physical movement stability of the user determined based on the sensor data, and the at least one processor is configured to: generate at least one second visual guide object indicating the physical movement stability (0063, 0074, 0088, As broadly claimed, position can be considered as a value corresponding to stability),
wherein the display module is configured to: output a GUI on which the at least one second visual guide object is displayed (0031, 0071).
Concerning claim 11,
Aragones discloses at least one of a second visual guide object indicating lateral stability of a physical movement of the user and/or a second visual guide object indicating rotational stability of the physical movement of the user (0063, 0077, 0084, As broadly claimed, position can be considered as a value corresponding to rotational stability).
Concerning claim 12,
Aragones discloses a fixed reference line, an avatar object that varies in tilt to be indicated based on an exercise posture measurement value corresponding to the physical movement stability, and a color object that varies in color based on an exercise posture evaluation level of the exercise posture measurement value corresponding to the physical movement stability (0063, 0076-0077, Figure 9, As broadly claimed, position can be considered as a value corresponding to stability).
Concerning claim 13,
Aragones discloses the wearable device is configured to output at least one of a guide voice through a speaker of the wearable device based on the feedback signal or haptic feedback at a body part needing exercise posture correction based on the feedback signal (0072).
Concerning claim 14,
Aragones discloses the first visual guide object further comprises: at least one third indicator indicating an angle range indicated by a fixed reference line (element 702) and an angle line of which an indication is changed based on an exercise posture measurement value of the user (element 804), wherein the avatar object is displayed within at a center of the first visual guide object and the at least one third indicator is overlaid on the avatar object (0072, 0076-0077, Figure 8).
Concerning claim 15,
Aragones discloses through the avatar object, exercise posture evaluation information determined for each exercise posture evaluation reference for the user is provided (0063, 0088-0089).
Concerning claim 16,
Aragones discloses determine the exercise posture measurement value comprising at least one of an upper body tilt value or a hip joint angle difference value between both hip joints of the user, based on the sensor data (0077, 0079).
Concerning claim 17,
Aragones discloses determine, as the exercise posture measurement value, at least one of a maximum upper body tilt value of the user or a maximum hip joint angle difference value between the hip joints of the user that is measured from a previous exercise posture of the user (0074, 0077, 0079, 0087-0088).
Concerning claim 18,
Aragones discloses receive, from the wearable device, the sensor data comprising at least one of an upper body movement value corresponding to an upper body movement of the user or a hip joint angle value corresponding to a leg movement of the user (0076-0077, 0079).
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Publication 2012/0183940 A1 to Aragones et al.
Concerning claim 19 and 20, see the rejection of claim 1, as the limitations are analogous. However, claims 19-20 do not have the limitation “control the communication module to transmit, to the wearable device, a feedback signal corresponding to the exercise posture evaluation information for the wearable device to output feedback to the user based on the feedback signal,” which is taught by Kim. The aforementioned excluded limitation is the only limitation in claim 1 which references Kim. As such, claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 rather than 35 U.S.C. 103.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISHAYU SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-3179. The examiner can normally be reached Flex.
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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at (571) 272-4430. 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.
/I.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/DMITRY SUHOL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights