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 1-12 are 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.
Claims 1-12 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a mental process that can be performed by human being and/or recite a method of organizing human activity.
In regard to Claim 1, the following limitations can be performed as a mental process by a human being in terms of claiming collecting data, analyzing that data, and providing outputs based on that analysis which has been held by the CAFC to be an abstract idea in decisions such as, e.g., Electric Power Group, University of Florida Research Foundation, and Yousician v Ubisoft (non-precedential); and/or recite a method of organizing human activity in terms of claiming the teaching/training/evaluation of a human subject’s which has been held by the CAFC to be an abstract idea in decisions such as, e.g., In re Noble Systems Corporation (non-precedential) in terms of the Applicant claiming:
[a]n interactive training [method] comprising:
[…]
enable a first user to [transmit] a challenge comprising multiple […] segments corresponding to respective multiple steps of the challenge;
enable a plurality of second users to access the challenge […];
receive […] trainee [content in response to the challenge] from the plurality of second users, wherein each of the trainee [content] corresponds to a step of the challenge performed by one of the plurality of second users;
[…] provide feedback on each of the trainee [content].
indicate that a particular second user has mastered a particular step of the challenge;
based on the indication, authorize the particular second user to access a previously inaccessible [content portion] of the challenge, the previously inaccessible [content portion] corresponding to a next step of the challenge.
In regard to the dependent claims, they also claim an abstract idea to the extent that they merely claim further limitations that likewise could be performed as a mental process by a human being and/or recite a method of organizing human activity.
Furthermore, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because to the extent that additional elements are claimed either alone or in combination such as, e.g., computers, processors, software modules, user interfaces, employing digital audio/video/text/graphics, uploading/downloading data over a network, editing digital videos, automatically converting audio into text, streaming live video, and/or employing computer vision, these are merely claimed to add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., data gathering), to embody the abstract idea on a general purpose computer, and/or do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. In this regard, see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) in regard to “courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application…”.
Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements that taken individually, and also taken as an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because to the extent that, e.g., computers, processors, software modules, user interfaces, employing digital audio/video/text/graphics, uploading/downloading data over a network, editing digital videos, automatically converting audio into text, streaming live video, and/or employing computer vision, these are generic, well-known, and conventional elements and are claimed for the generic, well-known, and conventional functions of collecting and processing data and/or providing an analysis/outputs based on that processing. To the extent that an apparatus is claimed as an additional element said apparatus fails to qualify as a “particular machine” to the extent that it is claimed generally, merely implements the steps of Applicant’s claimed method, and is claimed merely for purposes of extra-solution activity or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(b). As evidence that these additional elements are generic, well-known, and conventional, Applicant’s specification discloses the support for these elements 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). See, e.g., F1-2 in Applicant’s specification and text regarding same. See also, e.g., p27 in regard to employing user interfaces and digital video; p51 in regard to uploading/downloading data over a network; p58 in regard to editing digital videos; p58 in regard to automatically converting audio into text; p52 in regard to streaming live video; and/or, e.g., p66 in regard to employing computer vision.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PGPUB US 20100021877 A1 by Butler (“Butler”) in view of PGPUB US 20190228675 A1 by Geritz et al (“Geritz”).
In regard to Claim 1, Butler teaches an interactive training system comprising:
a user system including a first user interface and second user interfaces;
(see, e.g., F1, Instructor Device(s) (“first user interface”) and Student Devices (“second user interfaces”));
a processor connected to the first user interface; and
one or more software modules configured to, when executed by the processor:
(see, e.g., F1, Instructor Device);
enable a first user to upload a challenge comprising multiple video segments corresponding to respective multiple steps of the challenge;
(see, e.g., p37);
enable a plurality of second users to access the challenge via the second user interfaces;
(see, e.g., p37);
receive trainee videos from the plurality of second users, wherein each of the trainee videos corresponds to a step of the challenge performed by one of the plurality of second users; and
(see, e.g., p61);
automatically provide feedback on each of the trainee videos
(see, e.g., p70 regarding automatically populating the feedback form);
[…]
Furthermore, while Butler teaches the trainee providing feedback to the trainee (“enable the first user to indicate…challenge”), it may not teach the remaining claimed limitations, however, in an analogous reference Geritz teaches whereby an instructor unlocks successive instructional lessons in a video series based on his/her review of a trainee video (see, e.g., F16, p161)
Furthermore, the combination of the cited prior art would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because the cited prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the cited prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference; one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Specifically, it would have been obvious to have added the teaching of Geritz to the system otherwise taught by Butler in order to allow at least some of the content to be unlocked by the trainer based on his/her review of the trainee video, in order to better assure that the trainee has mastered one skill before moving on to the next skill in a series.
In regard to Claim 2, Butler teaches these limitations. See, e.g., p70.
In regard to Claim 3, Butler teaches these limitations. See, e.g., p71-75.
In regard to Claim 4, Butler teaches these limitations. See, e.g., F7.
In regard to Claim 5, Butler teaches these limitations. See, e.g., F7. Furthermore, to the extent that Butler may fail to teach the claimed visual appearance of the annotation as being overlaid on the student video such a visual appearance has no functional relationship to the claimed computer display and, therefore, does not distinguish over the cited prior art. See MPEP 2111.05.
In regard to Claim 9, Butler teaches these limitations in regard to teaching a trainee how to play the guitar.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Butler, in view of Geritz, in view of official notice.
In regard to Claim 6, while Butler teaches annotating a student video with instructor feedback (see, e.g., F7), it may not teach the remaining claimed limitations, however, Geritz teaches an instructor employing providing audio feedback to a trainee which is then inserted into the trainee video (see, e.g., F19-20 and p172-173);
Furthermore, the combination of the cited prior art would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because the cited prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the cited prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference; one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Specifically, it would have been obvious to have added the teaching of Geritz to the system otherwise taught by Butler by providing the ability for the instructor to provide audio feedback to the trainee, in order to make it easier for the instructor to provide such feedback.
Furthermore, to the extent to which the otherwise cited prior art may fail to specifically teach automatically converting the audio feedback speech to text, the Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that such functionality was old and well-known at the time of Applicant’s invention. Such functionality allows for the trainee to more easily receive the instructor’s feedback. As such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to implement the claimed feature within the invention of the cited prior art so as to allow for the trainee to more easily receive the instructor’s feedback.
Furthermore, the Applicant failed to adequately traverse the Examiner’s taking of official notice in the prior Office action and, therefore, these claimed limitations are now admitted prior art. See MPEP 2144.03.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Butler, in view of Geritz.
In regard to Claim 7, Butler teaches providing written and side-by-side video feedback to a student video. See, e.g., p74 and F7-F8. To the extent that Butler may not specifically teach providing the written and video feedback at the same time,
However, the combination of the cited prior art would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because the cited prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the cited prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference; one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Specifically, it would have been obvious to have combined the teachings of Butler and displayed both the written and side-by-side video feedback together on the same screen, in order to better instruct the student.
Furthermore, to the extent that Butler may fail to teach the claimed visual appearance of the feedback annotation as being overlaid on the student video such a visual appearance has no functional relationship to the claimed computer display and, therefore, does not distinguish over the cited prior art. See MPEP 2111.05.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Butler, in view of Geritz, further in view of PGPUB US 20200014967 A1 by Putnam (“Putnam”).
In regard to Claim 8, Putnam teaches an instructor being able to receive streaming video of a trainee and providing live feedback (see, e.g., p135);
Furthermore, the combination of the cited prior art would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because the cited prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the cited prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference; one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Specifically, it would have been obvious to have added the teaching of Putnam to the system otherwise taught by Butler, in order to make it easier for the instructor to provide timely feedback to the trainee.
Claims 10-11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Butler, in view of Geritz, further in view of PGPUB US 20150099252 A1 by Anderson et al (“Anderson”), further in view of PGPUB US 20210275107 A1 by Pitters (“Pitters”).
In regard to Claims 10-11, with the exception of employing a heat map to identify the trainee’s joints, Anderson teaches the remaining claimed limitations (see, e.g., F4A and 4E)
Furthermore, the combination of the cited prior art would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because the cited prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the cited prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference; one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Specifically, it would have been obvious to have added the teaching of Anderson to the system otherwise taught by the otherwise cited prior art, in order to provide an additional modality of feedback to the trainee by comparing his/her movements in the video to an expert’s movements.
Furthermore, Pitters teaches employing a heat map to identify the trainee’s joints (see, e.g., F3 and p53)
Furthermore, the combination of the cited prior art would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because the cited prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the cited prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference; one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Specifically, it would have been obvious to have added the teaching of Pitters to the system otherwise taught by the otherwise cited prior art, in order to more precisely identify where the trainee’s joints were in space so as to produce a more accurate skeletal representation.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Butler, in view of Geritz, further in view of Anderson, further in view of Pitters, further in view of official notice.
the Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that employing computer vision to identify human beings from video was old and well-known at the time of Applicant’s filing its invention. Such functionality allows for a particular individual to be tracked in a group of individuals. As such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to implement the claimed functionality within the invention of the cited prior art so as to allow for a particular individual to be tracked in a workout video in order to provide feedback to that individual.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is listed in the attached PTO-Form 892 and is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Mike Grant whose telephone number is 571-270-1545. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., except on the first Friday of each bi-week.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's Supervisory Primary Examiner, Peter Vasat can be reached at 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://pair-direct.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL C GRANT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights