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
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 configured to determine an exercise posture measurement value of the user based on the sensor data, and to generate a first visual guide object comprising a first indicator indicating an exercise posture reference for the selected exercise program and at least one second indicator indicating the determined exercise posture measurement value; 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 § 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) 1-12 and 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Publication 2012/0183940 A1 to Aragones et al. (hereinafter Aragones).
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 configured to determine an exercise posture measurement value of the user based on the sensor data, and to generate a first visual guide object comprising a first indicator indicating an exercise posture reference for the selected exercise program (element 1102) and at least one second indicator indicating the determined exercise posture measurement value (element 802) (0063, 0074, 0088-0091, Figure 11, As broadly claimed, the exercise posture measurement value is considered to be the position of the various body parts); 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).
Concerning claim 2,
Aragones discloses at least one of a second indicator indicating an exercise posture measurement value based on a previous exercise posture of the user and/or a second indicator indicating in real time an exercise posture measurement value based on a current 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 an exercise posture measurement value indicated by the at least one second indicator belongs (0085, 0089).
Concerning claim 5,
Aragones discloses the first indicator indicates an exercise posture reference range for the selected exercise program (0085, 0089), and
the at least one second indicator indicates in real time an 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 determine an exercise posture measurement value corresponding to a physical movement stability of the user based on the sensor data, and 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 14,
Aragones discloses the first visual guide object further comprises: an avatar object of which an operation to be displayed varies according to an exercise posture of the user (0088-0089).
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).
Concerning claims 19 and 20, see the rejection of claim 1.
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) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication 2012/0183940 A1 to Aragones et al. in view of US Publication 2021/0121729 A1 to Kim et al. (hereinafter Kim).
Concerning claim 13,
Aragones does not clearly disclose at least one processor is configured to: control the communication module to transmit exercise posture evaluation information of the user to the wearable device, and allow the wearable device to provide the user with a feedback signal corresponding to the exercise posture evaluation information.
Kim teaches at least one processor is configured to: control the communication module to transmit exercise posture evaluation information of the user to the wearable device, and allow the wearable device to provide the user with a feedback signal corresponding to the exercise posture evaluation information (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.
Conclusion
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