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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on September 20, 2023 has been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Drawings
Regarding FIGS. 3-8, 37 CFR 1.84(a)(1), stated in part, normally requires black and white drawings. India ink, or its equivalent that secures solid black lines, must be used for drawings. In the present case, FIGS. 3-8 have very faint text and lines. Therefore, the failure to use solid black text and lines renders FIGS. 3-8 from complying with 37 CFR 1.84(a)(1).
Regarding FIGS. 3, 5 and 6, 37 CFR 1.84(b)(1), stated in part, indicates that black and white photographs, including photocopies of photographs and clip art, are not ordinarily permitted in utility and design patent applications. The Office will accept photographs in utility and design patent applications, however, if photographs are the only practicable medium for illustrating the claimed invention. The photographs must be of sufficient quality so that all details in the photographs are reproducible in the printed patent. In the present case, FIGS. 3, 5 and 6 contain screenshots/clip art that are not of sufficient quality so that all details in the screenshots are reproducible in the printed patent. Therefore, the use of screenshots/clip art lacking sufficient reproducible quality prevents FIGS. 3, 5 and 6 from complying with 37 CFR 1.84(b)(1).
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 is directed to “a server” (i.e. “a machine”), hence the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). In other words, Step 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
However, the claims are drawn to an abstract idea of “providing an exercise management solution,” either in the form of “certain methods of organizing human activity,” in terms of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching and following rules or instructions), or reasonably in the form of “mental processes,” in terms of processes that can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion). Regardless, the claims are reasonably understood as either “certain methods of organizing human activity” or “mental processes,” which require the following limitations:
Per claim 1:
“…receive … hit point timing information, skeleton degree information, and vital sign information of each of a plurality of time periods of the user's exercise video;
perform an exercise training process or an exercise strength management process, based on the hit point timing information, the skeleton degree information, and the vital sign information of each of the plurality of time periods;
derive result information as a result of performing the exercise training process or the exercise strength management process; and
…transmit the derived result information…,
wherein the exercise video records therein an image of the user performing a specific exercise in which a specific motion set is repeated, for each of the plurality of time periods,
wherein the hit point timing information indicates a timing difference between a reference time-point at which a preset major motion of an exercise is performed by the user and an actual time-point at which the user actually performs the preset major motion,
wherein the skeleton degree information indicates a difference between a first reference value and an actual measurement value of an angle of a part of a body of the user performing the preset major motion,
wherein the vital sign information indicates a difference between a second reference value and an actual measurement value of a vital sign value at a time-point at which the user performs the major motion,
wherein a first time period among the plurality of time periods represents a time period for which the user performs the specific motion set,
wherein a preset look-up table is applied to the first time period of the exercise video to drive the reference time-point, the first reference value, and the second reference value,
wherein the reference time-point is derived by applying the look-up table preset based on a gender, an age, and a BMI (Body Mass Index) of the user to the first time period of the exercise video,
wherein each of the first reference value and the second reference value is derived by applying the look-up table preset based on the gender, the age, and the BMI of the user to the first time period of the exercise video,
wherein the actual time-point is derived based on an acceleration value received in real time… and an angular velocity value received in real time,
wherein the actual measurement value of the angle indicates the angle of the part of the body of the user performing the major motion in the exercise video,
wherein the actual measurement value of the vital signal is derived based on a vital value received in real time…,
wherein the look-up table is mapped to each video imaged for each of the plurality of time periods included in the exercise video to obtain a motion vector, skeleton data, and a vital sign for each of the plurality of time periods.”
These limitations simply describe a process of data gathering and manipulation, which is analogous to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection analysis” (i.e. Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Hence, these limitations are akin to an abstract idea which has been identified among non-limiting examples to be an abstract idea. In other words, Step 2A, Prong 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Furthermore, the applicants claimed elements of “a transceiver.” “a processor,” “a user device,” “a camera of the user device,” “an accelerometer sensor attached to exercise equipment,” “a gyroscope sensor attached to the exercise equipment,” and “a heart rate sensor,” are merely claimed to generally link the use of a judicial exception (e.g., pre-solution activity of data gathering and post-solution activity of presenting data) to (1) a particular technological environment or (2) field of use, per MPEP §2106.05(h); and are applying the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, per MPEP §2106.05(f). In other words, the claimed “providing an exercise management solution,” is not providing a practical application, thus Step 2A, Prong 2 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
Likewise, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because to the extent that, e.g. “a transceiver.” “a processor,” “a user device,” “a camera of the user device,” “an accelerometer sensor attached to exercise equipment,” “a gyroscope sensor attached to the exercise equipment,” and “a heart rate sensor,” are claimed, these are generic, well-known, and conventional data gather computing elements. As evidence that these are generic, well-known, and a conventional data gathering computing elements (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, or in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known, the Applicant’s specification discloses these in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), per MPEP § 2106.07(a) III (a). As such, this satisfies the Examiner’s evidentiary burden requirement per the Berkheimer memo.
Specifically, the Applicant’s claimed “a mobile device,” as described in para. [0116] of the Applicant’s written description as originally filed, provides the following: “[0116] The transceiver 720 may be used for communication of data/signal between modules within the server and/or, and may perform communication with an external device. In one example, the transceiver 720 may transmit and receive data to and from the external device (e.g., an external user device, an external server, etc.).” This broadly describes a generic computer component that is commonly provided in commercially available computers.
Likewise, the Applicant’s claimed “a processor,” as described in para. [0117] of the Applicant’s written description as originally filed, provides the following: “[0117] The processor 730 according to one embodiment may control the overall operations of the server 700. In one example, the processor 730 may generally control the database 710 and the transceiver 720 by executing the programs stored in the database 710 of the server 700. In one example, the processor 730 may perform some of the operations of the server 700 in FIGS. 1 to 6 by executing the programs stored in the database of the server 700.” As such, the Applicant’s “a processor,” is reasonably interpreted as a generic, well-known, and conventional data computing element.
Also, the Applicant’s claimed “a user device,” and “a camera of the user device,” as described in para. [0042] of the Applicant’s written description as originally filed, provides the following: “[0042] As used herein, the term “a user device” may be implemented as a variety of devices including smartphones, cell phones, smart TVs, smart watches, electronic wristwatches, set-top boxes, tablet PCs, digital cameras, camcorders, laptop computers, desktops, e-readers, digital broadcasting terminals, PDAs (Personal Digital Assistants), PMPs (Portable Multimedia Players), navigation devices, MP3 players, wearable devices, air conditioners, microwave ovens, audio devices, DVD players, etc.” As such, the Applicant’s “a user device,” and “a camera of the user device,” are reasonably interpreted as generic, well-known, and conventional computing devices commercially available today.
Finally, the Applicant’s claimed “an accelerometer sensor attached to exercise equipment,” “a gyroscope sensor attached to the exercise equipment,” and “a heart rate sensor,” as described in paras. [0081] and [0104] of the Applicant’s written description as originally filed, provides the following: “[0081] In one embodiment, the accelerometer sensor and the gyroscope sensor attached to the exercise device may be used to derive the actual performing time-point as described above in FIG. 2. The heart rate sensor attached to the user may be used to derive the actual vital measurement value as described above in FIG. 2. The user's exercise video may be used to derive the actual angle measurement value as described above in FIG. 2.”
“[0104] In one embodiment, an accelerometer sensor and a gyroscope sensor attached to the exercise device (e.g., a kettle bell), and a heart rate sensor attached to the user may generate an acceleration value, an angular velocity value, and heart rate data, respectively. The data acquired from the sensors may be transmitted to the user device via near-distance communication such as Bluetooth, Zigbee, or Wi-Fi.” As such, the Applicant’s “an accelerometer sensor attached to exercise equipment,” “a gyroscope sensor attached to the exercise equipment,” and “a heart rate sensor,” are reasonably interpreted as a generic, well-known, and conventional data gathering computing elements. Therefore, the Applicant’s own specification discloses ubiquitous standard equipment that is either generic, routine, conventional, and/or commercially available and does not provide anything significantly more. Thus, Step 2B, of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
Therefore, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject-matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT P. BULLINGTON whose telephone number is (313) 446-4841. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 8 A.M. to 4 P.M. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Peter Vasat, can be reached on (571) 270-7625. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free).
/Robert P Bullington, Esq./ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715