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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception(s) without significantly more.
[STEP 1] The claim recites at least one step. Thus, the claim is directed to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
[STEP2A PRONG I] The claim(s) 1, 10 and 11 recite(s):
A method of providing an exercise guide video, the method comprising:
displaying an exercise guide video including repetitive motions;
recognizing a posture of user while the exercise guide video is being displayed;
comparing the posture of the user with a reference posture included in the exercise guide video and corresponding to the posture of the user;
when, during a certain time period, a degree of similarity between the posture of the user and the reference posture is less than a reference value, ending the displaying the exercise guide video.
an electronic device comprising:
a display configured to display an exercise guide video including repetitive motions;
motion sensing sensor configured to recognize a posture of a user;
a processor configured to compare the posture of the user with a reference posture included in the exercise guide video and corresponding to the posture of the user and,
when, during a certain time period, a degree of similarity between the posture of the user and the reference posture is less than a reference value, end the displaying of the exercise guide video.
The non-highlighted aforementioned limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation between people but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “display” or “displaying”, “motion sensing sensor”, “processor” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed between people. For example, but for the recited language, the step in the context of this claim encompasses an instructor observing a user perform an exercise and provide appropriate relevant exercise video to the user.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing interactions between people, then it falls within the “Organization of Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim recites a judicial exception, and the analysis must therefore proceed to Step 2A Prong Two.
[STEP2A PRONG II] This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional element(s) – reciting “display” or “displaying”, “motion sensing sensor”, “processor”. Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
[STEP2B] The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the aforementioned steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, which cannot provide an inventive concept (for example, see page 7 last paragraph).
As noted previously, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the aforementioned concept in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
The claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO).
Claims 2-10 and 12-15 are dependent on supra claim(s) and includes all the limitations of the claim(s). Therefore, the dependent claim(s) recite(s) the same abstract idea. The claim recites no additional limitations. Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. 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. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 7, 10-11, 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Asikainen US 2021/0008413
Claims 1 and 10: The Asikainen et al reference provides a teaching of a method of providing an exercise guide video (see abstract and paragraph 66 “…an on-demand video stream of an instructor performing the exercise movements for the user to repeat and follow along “, the method comprising:
displaying an exercise guide video including repetitive motions (see paragraph 34 “video of personal trainer performing an exercise movement” and 66 “instructor performing the exercise movement“);
recognizing a posture of a user while the exercise guide video is being displayed (see paragraph 67 plurality of sensors focused on monitoring the movements, positions, activities and interaction of one or more users the interactive personal training device and paragraph 78 “The pose estimator 302 receives the processed sensor data stream including one or more images from the data processing engine 204 depicting one or more users and estimates the 2D or 3D pose coordinates for each keypoint (e.g., elbows, wrists, joints, knees, etc.). “ );
comparing the posture of the user with a reference posture included in the exercise guide video and corresponding to the posture of the user (see paragraph 84 “In some implementations, the movement adherence monitor 310 compares whether the user performance of the exercise movement in view of body mechanics associated with correctly performing the exercise movement falls within acceptable range or threshold for human joint positions and movements“);
and
when, during a certain time period, a degree of similarity between the posture of the user and the reference posture is less than a reference value, ending the displaying of the exercise guide video (see paragraph 81 recognizing certain poses to end the exercise guidance video).
Specifically for claim 10, the Asikainenn et al provide a teaching of a computer readable medium having recorded for executing, on a computer, the method of claim 1 (see paragraph 50).
Claims 2 and 13: The Asikainen et al provides a teaching of wherein the certain time period is greater than or equal to a time period corresponding to one set motion included in the exercise guide video (see paragraph 81 “ change in the detected poses from a first articulated pose to a second articulated pose defined for the exercise movement in a threshold number of image frames”).
Claims 3 and 14: The Asikainen et al provides a teaching of further comprising, when the degree of similarity between the posture of the user and the reference posture is greater than or equal to the reference value, displaying the exercise guide video according to an exercise speed of the user (see paragraph 92 showing the manipulating the guide video by increasing or decreasing the speed of the exercise movement).
Claim 7: The Asikainen reference provides a teaching of wherein a reference section is greater than or equal to a section corresponding to a sub-set motion in the exercise guide video (see paragraph 85).
Claim 11: The Asikainen reference provides a teaching of an electronic device comprising:
a display configured to display an exercise guide video including repetitive motions (see paragraph 34 “video of personal trainer performing an exercise movement” and 66 “instructor performing the exercise movement“);
a motion sensing sensor configured to recognize a posture of a user (see paragraph 67 plurality of sensors focused on monitoring the movements, positions, activities and interaction of one or more users the interactive personal training device and paragraph 78 “The pose estimator 302 receives the processed sensor data stream including one or more images from the data processing engine 204 depicting one or more users and estimates the 2D or 3D pose coordinates for each keypoint (e.g., elbows, wrists, joints, knees, etc.). “ ); and
a processor configured to compare the posture of the user with a reference posture included in the exercise guide video and corresponding to the posture of the user (see paragraph 84 “In some implementations, the movement adherence monitor 310 compares whether the user performance of the exercise movement in view of body mechanics associated with correctly performing the exercise movement falls within acceptable range or threshold for human joint positions and movements“);
and, when, during a certain time period, a degree of similarity between the posture of the user and the reference posture is less than a reference value, end the displaying of the exercise guide video(see paragraph 81 recognizing certain poses to end the exercise guidance video).
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.
Claim(s) 4-6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asikainen US 2021/0008413 and in view of LG KR-102262725
Claims 4 and 15: The Asikainen reference is silent on the teaching of wherein the displaying of the exercise guide video includes, when it is determined that the posture of the user is ahead of the reference posture displayed in the exercise guide video by a reference section, increasing a play speed of the exercise guide video such that the displayed reference posture corresponds to the posture of the user.
However, the LG refrence provides a teaching of wherein the displaying of the exercise guide video includes, when it is determined that the posture of the user is ahead of the reference posture displayed in the exercise guide video by a reference section, increasing a play speed of the exercise guide video such that the displayed reference posture corresponds to the posture of the user (see page 7 paragraph 1 showing the guide video to the user and synchronizing it with the user’s actual speed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Asikainen with the feature of wherein the displaying of the exercise guide video includes, when it is determined that the posture of the user is ahead of the reference posture displayed in the exercise guide video by a reference section, increasing a play speed of the exercise guide video such that the displayed reference posture corresponds to the posture of the user, as taught by the LG reference, in order to provide the user with an intuitive video feedback that is appropriate to the level of the user (see page 5 paragraph 1).
Claim 5: The Asikainen is silent on the teaching of wherein the displaying of the exercise guide video includes, when it is determined that the posture of the user is behind the reference posture displayed in the exercise guide video by a reference section, decreasing a play speed of the exercise guide video such that the displayed reference posture corresponds to the posture of the user.
However, the LG reference provides a teaching of wherein the displaying of the exercise guide video includes, when it is determined that the posture of the user is behind the reference posture displayed in the exercise guide video by a reference section, decreasing a play speed of the exercise guide video such that the displayed reference posture corresponds to the posture of the user (see page 7 paragraph 1 showing the guide video to the user and synchronizing it with the user’s actual speed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Asikainen with the feature of wherein the displaying of the exercise guide video includes, when it is determined that the posture of the user is behind the reference posture displayed in the exercise guide video by a reference section, decreasing a play speed of the exercise guide video such that the displayed reference posture corresponds to the posture of the user, as taught by the LG reference, in order to provide the user with an intuitive video feedback that is appropriate to the level of the user (see page 5 paragraph 1).
Claim 6: The Asikainen reference is silent on the teaching of wherein the displaying of the exercise guide video includes, when it is determined that the posture of the user is behind the reference posture displayed in the exercise guide video by a reference section, pausing the displaying of the exercise guide video until the displayed reference posture corresponds to the posture of the user.
However, the LG reference provides a teaching of wherein the displaying of the exercise guide video includes, when it is determined that the posture of the user is behind the reference posture displayed in the exercise guide video by a reference section, pausing the displaying of the exercise guide video until the displayed reference posture corresponds to the posture of the user (see page 9 paragraph 1 providing pauses such that the user can keep up with the exercise).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Asikainen with the feature of wherein the displaying of the exercise guide video includes, when it is determined that the posture of the user is behind the reference posture displayed in the exercise guide video by a reference section, pausing the displaying of the exercise guide video until the displayed reference posture corresponds to the posture of the user, as taught by the LG reference, in order to provide the user with an intuitive video feedback that is appropriate to the level of the user (see page 5 paragraph 1).
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asikainen US 2021/0008413 and in view of Aragones US 10583328
Claim 8: The Asikainen referemce is silent on the teaching of when, during the certain time period, the degree of similarity between the posture of the user and the reference posture is greater than or equal to the reference value, changing, according to the degree of similarity, a body shape of a character indicating the user; and displaying the changed body shape of the character.
However, the Aragones et al provide a teaching of when, during the certain time period, the degree of similarity between the posture of the user and the reference posture is greater than or equal to the reference value, changing, according to the degree of similarity, a body shape of a character indicating the user; and displaying the changed body shape of the character (see col. 21:5-25 the monitoring of the user’s pose and how the size of the avatar changes in light of the user’s accuracy in performing the exercise).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Asikainen with the feature of during the certain time period, the degree of similarity between the posture of the user and the reference posture is greater than or equal to the reference value, changing, according to the degree of similarity, a body shape of a character indicating the user; and displaying the changed body shape of the character, as taught by the Aragones reference, in order to provide an intuitive showing of the user’s exercise performance.
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asikainen US 2021/0008413 and in view of Savvy WO 2018195653
Claim 9: The Asikainen reference provides a teaching of further comprising generating the exercise guide video including two or more set motions, based on reverse playing of some sections of an original video including one set motion.
The Savvy reference provides a teaching of further comprising generating the exercise guide video including two or more set motions, based on reverse playing of some sections of an original video including one set motion (see paragraph 23 line 10-13).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Asikainen with the feature of generating the exercise guide video including two or more set motions, based on reverse playing of some sections of an original video including one set motion, as taught by the Savvy reference, in order to provide an intuitive feedback to the user on their performance.
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asikainen US 2021/0008413 and in view of Braesch US 20130156999
Claim 12: The Asikainen further comprising a film disposed on the display and configured to transmit light corresponding to the exercise guide video and reflect light corresponding to the posture of the user.
However, the Braesch reference provides a teaching of a film disposed on the display and configured to transmit light corresponding to the exercise guide video and reflect light corresponding to the posture of the user (see Fig. 2 item 203 being positioned on a computer display screen).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Asikainen with the feature of film disposed on the display and configured to transmit light corresponding to the exercise guide video and reflect light corresponding to the posture of the user, as taught by the Braesch, in order to reduce glare and provide some privacy to the user (see paragraph 42).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT J UTAMA whose telephone number is (571)272-1676. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 17:30 Monday - Friday.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at (571)270-1344. 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.
/ROBERT J UTAMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715