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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of claims (1-20) in the reply filed on 1/2/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that "If the search and examination of all the claims in an application can be made without serious burden, the examiner must examine them on the merits, even though they include claims to independent or distinct inventions.". Independent claim 11 corresponds to the subject matter of claim 10. In this regard, Applicant submits that there would not be a serious burden to search claims 1-10 due to claim 10's similarities to claim 11. Finally, any rationale for allowing claim 11 may be similarly applicable to claim 10, which would require the restriction of claims 1-20 to be withdrawn. This is found persuasive. Therefore, the restriction requirement has been withdrawn.
Information Disclosure Statement
In the manner set forth in MPEP 609.05(b), the Examiner has considered all of the references submitted as part of the Information Disclosure Statement(s), but has not found any to be particularly relevant. If Applicant is aware of pertinent material in the references, Applicant should so state in a response to this Office action.
MPEP 2004 states:
“It is desirable to avoid the submission of long lists of documents if it can be avoided. Eliminate clearly irrelevant and marginally pertinent cumulative information. If a long list is submitted, highlight those documents which have been specifically brought to applicant’s attention and/or are known to be of most significance. See Penn Yan Boats, Inc. v. Sea Lark Boats, Inc., 359 F. Supp. 948, 175 USPQ 260 (S.D. Fla. 1972), aff ’d, 479 F.2d 1338, 178 USPQ 577 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 874 (1974). But cf. Molins PLC v. Textron Inc., 48 F.3d 1172, 33 USPQ2d 1823 (Fed. Cir. 1995)”.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because in figure 12 element 1220 should recite using a second machine learning model and a second movement as taught in paragraph 69. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims (1, 5, 8, 12, 17) are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, lines 12 the limitation of “the image capture device” should be rewritten as “an image capture device”. In line 13 the limitation of “the non-virtual actor” should be rewritten as “a non-virtual actor”. In claim 5, line 3 the limitation of “more objects at least” should be rewritten as “more objects in at least”. In claim 8, line 4 the limitation of “a repetition of the exercise” should be rewritten as “the repetition of the exercise”. In claim 12, line 2 the limitation of “the one or more” should be rewritten as “one or more”. In claim 17, line 3 the limitation of “the one or more” should be rewritten as “one or more”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 (11-20) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, specifically an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims (11-20) are directed to the abstract idea of Mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations); Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion); Certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior), Grouping “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people”.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite additional limitations such as computing device, one or more processors, memory storing instructions, machine learning models, parallel execution of two models, detection based on movement/pose and object detection, output of indications. However, these limitations are not enough to qualify as “practical application” being recited in the claims along with the abstract idea since these limitations are merely invoked as a tool to perform instruction of Abstract idea in a particular technological environment and/or are generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, and merely applying and abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting use of an abstract idea to a particular field or a technological environment do not provide practical application for an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05 (f) & (h)). The claims do not amount to "practical application" for the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims recite additional limitations which are computing device, one or more processors, memory storing instructions, machine learning models, parallel execution of two models, detection based on movement/pose and object detection, output of indications. However, these limitations are not enough to qualify as “significantly more” being recited in the claims along with the abstract idea since these limitations are merely invoked as a tool to perform instruction of Abstract idea in a particular technological environment and/or are generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, and merely applying and abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting use of an abstract idea to a particular field or a technological environment do not provide significantly more to an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f) & (h)). The claims do not amount to "significantly more" than the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field; (6) add unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application; nor (7) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claims (11-20) that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and looking at the limitations as a combination and as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually, claims 11-20 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims (1-10) are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
WO 2020/252599
Applicant states “The International Search Report found that claims 1-10 were allegedly anticipated by WO 2020/252599 (“Flex AI”). Applicant respectfully disagrees and submits that Flex AI does not disclose or suggest at least: “generating the synthetic training data for the one or more machine learning models using a virtual actor performing the exercise movement and using one or more virtual cameras” and “training, by a server, the one or more machine learning models using the synthetic training data” as required by claim 1. In this regard, paragraph [0076] of Flex AI describes using “video of a user performing one or more exercise reps of an exercise type.” However, the video is not synthetic training data. Moreover, the user described in Flex AI is not a virtual actor, as required by the claims. As explained in the specification, the use of a virtual actor and/or virtual cameras allow for “reposition[ing] to capture one or more variances in the first pose, for example, from different angles and/or perspectives.” Spec., ¶[0006]. Indeed, by “using virtual actors and one or more virtual cameras to train the one or more machine learning models, the application may be able to recognize a movement performed by the non-virtual actor regardless of the placement of computing device and/or the angle or perspective of the one or more cameras. That is, the use of the virtual actors and one or more virtual cameras may create a more diverse set of training data that would allow the one or more machine learning models to recognize movements from any angle or perspective. Additionally, the one or more machine learning models may recognize movements when the non-virtual actor is not centered in a frame of the one or more cameras. This improves over existing technologies, which require specific placement of a device and/or the user to be centered in a frame of an image” Id. at ¶[0008]. The Office is reminded that it is well established that "[a] claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference." MPEP § 2131 citing Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (emphasis added). Furthermore, "unless a reference discloses within the four corners of the document not only all of the limitations claimed but also all of the limitations arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claim, it cannot be said to prove prior invention of the thing claimed and, thus, cannot anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102." Net MoneyIn, Inc. v. Verisign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008); see also In re Arkley, 455 F.2d 586, 587 (CCPA 1972) (“[T]he [prior art] reference must clearly and unequivocally disclose the claimed [invention] or direct those skilled in the art to the [invention] without any need for picking, choosing, and combining various disclosures not directly related to each other by the teachings of the cited reference.”). Because Flex AI does not disclose the use of synthetic data and/or virtual actors, Flex AI cannot anticipate claims 1-10. (See applicant’s remarks dated 2/2/26.)
US 2019/0091515
Applicant states “The International Search Report found that claims 11-20 lacked an inventive step over Flex AI in view of U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2019/0091515 (“Shavit”). As noted above, Flex AI does not train one or more machine learning models using synthetic training data. Shavit fails to cure Flex AI’s deficiencies because, similarly, Shavit does not disclose or suggest “train[ing] one or more machine learning models using synthetic training data” as required by the claims. While Shavit describes “monitoring performance of a physical exercise routine,” Shavit appears to be silent about doing so using machine learning models. Accordingly, claims 11-20 have an inventive step over the combination of Flex AI and Shavit.” (See applicant’s remarks dated 2/2/26.)
US 2020/0051446
Applicant states “Physera does not disclose or suggest at least: “generating the synthetic training data for the one or more machine learning models using a virtual actor performing the exercise movement and using one or more virtual cameras” and “training, by a server, the one or more machine learning models using the synthetic training data” as required by claim 1. Physera discloses that, “[d]uring training, images and video that are manually labeled by the users or physical trainers may be used as training data for the machine learning model. Through training, the machine learning model may learn to determine metrics describing musculoskeletal form, or to predict proper or improper form automatically without requiring manual labeling or classification of images.” Physera, ¶[0003]. Yet, Physera does not describe “generating the synthetic training data for the one or more machine learning models using a virtual actor performing the exercise movement and using one or more virtual cameras” and “training, by a server, the one or more machine learning models using the synthetic training data” as required by claim 1. Claim 11, while different, is similarly distinguishable over Physera.”. (See applicant’s remarks dated 2/2/26.)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Rubinstein et al (US 2020/0051446 A1) disclose classification of musculoskeletal form using machine learning.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEON FLORES whose telephone number is (571)270-1201. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 6pm.
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, HENOK SHIFERAW can be reached at 571-272-4637. 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.
/LEON FLORES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2676 February 5, 2026