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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to the patent application 18/719,556 originally filed on June 13, 2024. Claims 1-13 were originally presented for examination.
In the Preliminary Amendment filed June 13, 2024, claims 1-13 are amended and claims 14-20 are presented as new claims. Claims 1-20 are now pending examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on June 13, 2024 and November 12, 2025 have been considered. Initialed copies of the Form 1449 are enclosed herewith.
The Examiner notes that in the IDS filed November 12, 2025, the fourth reference provided in the “Other Art” section (“Vitruvian”) could not be considered because no document, copy, or abstract was provided.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55 on June 13, 2024. This application is a 371 of PCT/KR2023/005865, filed April 28, 2023. This application claims foreign priority of KR10-2022-0187522 (filed December 28, 2022) and KR10-2022-0104886 (Filed August 22, 2022), both of Republic of Korea. Certified copies of the foreign priority documents were received on November 21, 2024.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation is:
“a camera module” in claims 1 and 14 (described in instant specification [93-94], “The image processing device 30 according to the embodiment of the present disclosure may include a camera module 320. For example, the camera module 320 may capture a user exercising in the weight training equipment 10… In the embodiment of the present disclosure, the camera module 320 includes a CMOS image sensor and is installed in front of the image processing device 30 to capture a motion image of a user. As another example, a separate camera module 320 for capturing images may be connected to the image processing device 30 so that the image processing device 30 may receive images captured from that separate camera module 320 through wired or wireless communication.”).
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a user movement distance.” The limitation is originally introduced earlier in claim 1. As such, the subsequent limitations are either (1) not following antecedent basis (i.e. “[[a]] the user movement distance”); or (2) are intended to be new limitations which ambiguously conflict with the previous limitation of claim 1. Therefore, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 2-13 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 1.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the pulled-out wire.” The limitation is not previously introduced in claim 1, 2, or 13, respectively. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yerushalmy et al. (hereinafter “Yerushalmy,” US 11,861,944).
Regarding claim 14, Yerushalmy discloses an image processing device (Yerushalmy col. 5 line 62 through col. 6 line 37, “a system 100 for generating video output 102 based on video data 104 that depicts performance of an activity by a user 106”) comprising:
a data storage to store at least a first exercise image (Yerushalmy col. 4 lines 52-67, “an avatar representing the user may be positioned adjacent to or superimposed on a visual representation of an instructor or other individual to facilitate proper performance of an activity by the user,” the instructor visual representation must necessarily be stored for it to be presented to the user as a superimposed image);
a camera module configured to capture at least one user exercise image (Yerushalmy col. 6 lines 1-37, “The camera 110 may generate video data 104(1) that depicts the user 106(1) and other objects within the field of view of the camera 110”);
an image display configured to display the first exercise image and the user exercise image (Yerushalmy col. 4 lines 52-67, “an avatar representing the user may be positioned adjacent to or superimposed on a visual representation of an instructor or other individual to facilitate proper performance of an activity by the user.”); and
a controller configured to control an image frame to be displayed on the image display from among a plurality of image frames constituting the first exercise image based on user movement information, such that a movement in the first exercise image corresponds to a user movement in the user exercise image (Yerushalmy col. 6 lines 58-60, “the video data 104(2) may include instructional content that depicts a second user 106(2), such as a fitness instructor, performing an activity, such as a fitness exercise” ; also Yerushalmy col. 7 lines12-51, “Frames of the second video data 104(2) that include poses of the second user 106(2) may be matched with frames of the first video data 104(1) that include corresponding poses of the first user 106(1). Based on the times associated with the frames, the performance rate for the video output 102(2) may be determined… Based on the performance rates determined from the times and poses, second video output 102(2) may be generated in which the performance rate and poses of the second user 106(2) are within a threshold value of the performance rate and poses of the first user 106(1). For example, at the second time T2, FIG. 1 depicts synchronized video output 102(2) in which the pose of the second user 106(2) corresponds to the pose of the first user 106(1).”).
Regarding claim 15, Yerushalmy discloses wherein the controller matches the first exercise image and the user exercise image in units of one exercise cycle and displays the matched image on the image display (Yerushalmy col. 7 lines 12-51, “the time between different poses of the first user 106(1), such as a time between the start and end of one repetition of a fitness exercise, may be used to determine a performance rate for the first user 106(1). The time between corresponding poses of the second user 106(2) may be used to determine a performance rate for the second user 106(2). Based on the performance rates determined from the times and poses, second video output 102(2) may be generated in which the performance rate and poses of the second user 106(2) are within a threshold value of the performance rate and poses of the first user 106(1). For example, at the second time T2, FIG. 1 depicts synchronized video output 102(2) in which the pose of the second user 106(2) corresponds to the pose of the first user 106(1).”).
Regarding claim 16, Yerushalmy discloses wherein each of the image frames constituting the first exercise image includes movement information of a corresponding one of the image frames based on one exercise cycle (Yerushalmy col. 7 lines 12-51, “Frames of the second video data 104(2) that include poses of the second user 106(2) may be matched with frames of the first video data 104(1) that include corresponding poses of the first user 106(1). Based on the times associated with the frames, the performance rate for the video output 102(2) may be determined. For example, the time between different poses of the first user 106(1), such as a time between the start and end of one repetition of a fitness exercise, may be used to determine a performance rate for the first user 106(1).”).
Regarding claim 17, Yerushalmy discloses wherein the movement information includes first ratio defined as a ratio of the movement information of the corresponding one of the image frames to a total movement information based on one exercise cycle (Yerushalmy col. 7 lines 12-51, “Based on the first video data 104(1) and second video data 104(2) that depicts the second user 106(2) performing the activity, the server(s) 112 may generate video output 102(2) in which the performance rate and poses of the second user 106(2) are within a threshold value of the performance rate and poses of the first user 106(1). For example, the server(s) 112 may analyze the first video data 104(1) and second video data 104(2) to determine the poses of the first user 106(1) and second user 106(2), respectively, at various times. Frames of the second video data 104(2) that include poses of the second user 106(2) may be matched with frames of the first video data 104(1) that include corresponding poses of the first user 106(1). Based on the times associated with the frames, the performance rate for the video output 102(2) may be determined. For example, the time between different poses of the first user 106(1), such as a time between the start and end of one repetition of a fitness exercise, may be used to determine a performance rate for the first user 106(1). The time between corresponding poses of the second user 106(2) may be used to determine a performance rate for the second user 106(2). Based on the performance rates determined from the times and poses, second video output 102(2) may be generated in which the performance rate and poses of the second user 106(2) are within a threshold value of the performance rate and poses of the first user 106(1),” determining the performance rate between poses of a repetition effectively determines the ratio of movement distance to total movement distance).
Regarding claim 18, Yerushalmy discloses wherein the controller is configured to extract one exercise cycle of the user based on the user movement information, and wherein the controller matches the first exercise image and the user exercise image in units of one exercise cycle based on the one exercise cycle of the user and the one exercise cycle of the stored exercise image (Yerushalmy col. 7 lines 12-51, “As such, the server(s) 112 may generate video output 102(2) based on the first video data 104(1) and second video data 104(2) that synchronizes the performance rate of the second user 106(2) relative to that of the first user 106(1) and may cause the second user 106(2) to achieve poses at or near times when the first user 106(1) achieves similar poses.”).
Regarding claim 19, Yerushalmy discloses wherein the controller determines a total movement within one exercise cycle of the user, and determines a user ratio defined as a ratio of a current movement of the user to the total movement of the user, and wherein the controller matches an image frame having a ratio matching the user ratio to the current movement of the user and displays the matched image on the image display (Yerushalmy col. 7 lines 12-51, “Based on the first video data 104(1) and second video data 104(2) that depicts the second user 106(2) performing the activity, the server(s) 112 may generate video output 102(2) in which the performance rate and poses of the second user 106(2) are within a threshold value of the performance rate and poses of the first user 106(1). For example, the server(s) 112 may analyze the first video data 104(1) and second video data 104(2) to determine the poses of the first user 106(1) and second user 106(2), respectively, at various times. Frames of the second video data 104(2) that include poses of the second user 106(2) may be matched with frames of the first video data 104(1) that include corresponding poses of the first user 106(1). Based on the times associated with the frames, the performance rate for the video output 102(2) may be determined. For example, the time between different poses of the first user 106(1), such as a time between the start and end of one repetition of a fitness exercise, may be used to determine a performance rate for the first user 106(1). The time between corresponding poses of the second user 106(2) may be used to determine a performance rate for the second user 106(2). Based on the performance rates determined from the times and poses, second video output 102(2) may be generated in which the performance rate and poses of the second user 106(2) are within a threshold value of the performance rate and poses of the first user 106(1),” determining the performance rate between poses of a repetition effectively determines the ratio of movement distance to total movement distance).
Regarding claim 20, Yerushalmy discloses wherein the controller determines a total movement within one exercise cycle of the user for each exercise cycle, and determines a user ratio in a current exercise cycle based on a total movement determined in a previous exercise cycle (Yerushalmy col. 5 lines 9-61, “video output presented to a user may be generated based on video data associated with previous performance of the activity by other users, enabling the user to compare performance with that of other users, simulate attendance in a virtual fitness class or other group environment, and so forth. Inclusion of a visual representation of the user may enable the user to directly compare current performance of an activity to previous performance by the user, or to the performance of an instructor or other users.”; also Yerushalmy col. 18 lines 11-38, “the second video data 104(2) may depict the first user 106(1) performing the activity at a previous time. For example, the first user 106(1) may wish to compare one or more characteristics of a current performance of an activity, such as the user's range of motion, to previous performance of the activity by the first user 106(1). In still other implementations, second video data 104(2) may depict one or more other users 106 performing the other activity at a previous time.”).
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yerushalmy in view of Alessandri et al. (hereinafter “Alessandri,” US 2015/0080183).
Regarding claim 1, Yerushalmy discloses an image processing device interworking with weight training equipment (Yerushalmy col. 5 line 62 through col. 6 line 37, “a system 100 for generating video output 102 based on video data 104 that depicts performance of an activity by a user 106… a sensor may be associated with an object that may be manipulated by a user 106, such as a piece of fitness equipment, and may generate data indicative of a position, orientation, or rate of movement of the user 106(1) or object”), the image processing device comprising:
a data storage to store at least an expert exercise image (Yerushalmy col. 4 lines 52-67, “an avatar representing the user may be positioned adjacent to or superimposed on a visual representation of an instructor or other individual to facilitate proper performance of an activity by the user,” the instructor visual representation must necessarily be stored for it to be presented to the user as a superimposed image);
a camera module configured to capture at least one user exercise image while on the weight training equipment (Yerushalmy col. 6 lines 1-37, “The camera 110 may generate video data 104(1) that depicts the user 106(1) and other objects within the field of view of the camera 110… a sensor may be associated with an object that may be manipulated by a user 106, such as a piece of fitness equipment”);
an image display configured to display the expert exercise image and the user exercise image (Yerushalmy col. 4 lines 52-67, “an avatar representing the user may be positioned adjacent to or superimposed on a visual representation of an instructor or other individual to facilitate proper performance of an activity by the user.”);
…
a controller configured to control an expert image frame to be displayed on the image display from among a plurality of expert image frames constituting the expert exercise image based on the user movement distance received through the communication device, such that an expert movement distance in the expert exercise image matches a user movement distance in the user exercise image (Yerushalmy col. 6 lines 58-60, “the video data 104(2) may include instructional content that depicts a second user 106(2), such as a fitness instructor, performing an activity, such as a fitness exercise” ; also Yerushalmy col. 7 lines12-51, “Frames of the second video data 104(2) that include poses of the second user 106(2) may be matched with frames of the first video data 104(1) that include corresponding poses of the first user 106(1). Based on the times associated with the frames, the performance rate for the video output 102(2) may be determined… Based on the performance rates determined from the times and poses, second video output 102(2) may be generated in which the performance rate and poses of the second user 106(2) are within a threshold value of the performance rate and poses of the first user 106(1). For example, at the second time T2, FIG. 1 depicts synchronized video output 102(2) in which the pose of the second user 106(2) corresponds to the pose of the first user 106(1).”).
Yerushalmy does not explicitly teach a communication device configured to receive a user movement distance based on a user's exercise from the weight training equipment.
Yerushalmy does disclose sensors on fitness equipment that generate data such as rate of movement (Yerushalmy col. 6 lines 26-29). Yerushalmy also discloses communication interfaces 610 as part of the computing device 602 (see Yerushalmy Fig. 6). However, Yerushalmy does not explicitly teach using the communication interfaces 610 to receive the data generated from the sensors attached to the fitness equipment.
However, Alessandri discloses a communication device configured to receive a user movement distance based on a user's exercise from the weight training equipment (Alessandri [0166], “The position sensors 23 are configured to transmit the dumb-bell 22 position signal to the processor 6 preferably through a wireless transmission system 28.”).
Alessandri is analogous to Yerushalmy, as both are drawn to the art of physical fitness instruction. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Yerushalmy, to include a communication device configured to receive a user movement distance based on a user's exercise from the weight training equipment, as taught by Alessandri, in order to allow the user to perform an exercise correctly, optimizing the beneficial effects associated with the exercise and reducing the risks deriving from incorrect postures that might be adopted during the performance of the exercise (Alessandri [0041]). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 2, Yerushalmy in view of Alessandri discloses wherein the controller matches the expert exercise image and the user exercise image in units of one exercise cycle and displays the matched image on the image display (Yerushalmy col. 7 lines 12-51, “the time between different poses of the first user 106(1), such as a time between the start and end of one repetition of a fitness exercise, may be used to determine a performance rate for the first user 106(1). The time between corresponding poses of the second user 106(2) may be used to determine a performance rate for the second user 106(2). Based on the performance rates determined from the times and poses, second video output 102(2) may be generated in which the performance rate and poses of the second user 106(2) are within a threshold value of the performance rate and poses of the first user 106(1). For example, at the second time T2, FIG. 1 depicts synchronized video output 102(2) in which the pose of the second user 106(2) corresponds to the pose of the first user 106(1).”).
Regarding claim 3, Yerushalmy in view of Alessandri discloses wherein each of the expert image frames constituting the expert exercise image includes an expert movement distance of a corresponding one of the expert image frames based on one exercise cycle of an expert (Yerushalmy col. 7 lines 12-51, “Frames of the second video data 104(2) that include poses of the second user 106(2) may be matched with frames of the first video data 104(1) that include corresponding poses of the first user 106(1). Based on the times associated with the frames, the performance rate for the video output 102(2) may be determined. For example, the time between different poses of the first user 106(1), such as a time between the start and end of one repetition of a fitness exercise, may be used to determine a performance rate for the first user 106(1).”).
Regarding claim 4, Yerushalmy in view of Alessandri discloses wherein the expert movement distance includes an expert ratio defined as a ratio of the expert movement distance of the corresponding one of the expert image frames to a total movement distance based on one exercise cycle of the expert (Yerushalmy col. 7 lines 12-51, “Based on the first video data 104(1) and second video data 104(2) that depicts the second user 106(2) performing the activity, the server(s) 112 may generate video output 102(2) in which the performance rate and poses of the second user 106(2) are within a threshold value of the performance rate and poses of the first user 106(1). For example, the server(s) 112 may analyze the first video data 104(1) and second video data 104(2) to determine the poses of the first user 106(1) and second user 106(2), respectively, at various times. Frames of the second video data 104(2) that include poses of the second user 106(2) may be matched with frames of the first video data 104(1) that include corresponding poses of the first user 106(1). Based on the times associated with the frames, the performance rate for the video output 102(2) may be determined. For example, the time between different poses of the first user 106(1), such as a time between the start and end of one repetition of a fitness exercise, may be used to determine a performance rate for the first user 106(1). The time between corresponding poses of the second user 106(2) may be used to determine a performance rate for the second user 106(2). Based on the performance rates determined from the times and poses, second video output 102(2) may be generated in which the performance rate and poses of the second user 106(2) are within a threshold value of the performance rate and poses of the first user 106(1),” determining the performance rate between poses of a repetition effectively determines the ratio of movement distance to total movement distance).
Regarding claim 5, Yerushalmy in view of Alessandri discloses a user movement analyzer configured to extract one exercise cycle of the user based on the user movement distance, and wherein the controller matches the expert exercise image and the user exercise image in units of one exercise cycle based on the one exercise cycle of the user and the one exercise cycle of the expert (Yerushalmy col. 7 lines 12-51, “As such, the server(s) 112 may generate video output 102(2) based on the first video data 104(1) and second video data 104(2) that synchronizes the performance rate of the second user 106(2) relative to that of the first user 106(1) and may cause the second user 106(2) to achieve poses at or near times when the first user 106(1) achieves similar poses.”).
Regarding claim 6, Yerushalmy in view of Alessandri discloses wherein the user movement analyzer determines a total movement distance within one exercise cycle of the user, and determines a user ratio defined as a ratio of a current movement distance of the user to the total movement distance of the user, and wherein the controller matches an expert image frame having an expert ratio matching the user ratio to the current movement distance of the user and displays the matched image on the image display (Yerushalmy col. 7 lines 12-51, “Based on the first video data 104(1) and second video data 104(2) that depicts the second user 106(2) performing the activity, the server(s) 112 may generate video output 102(2) in which the performance rate and poses of the second user 106(2) are within a threshold value of the performance rate and poses of the first user 106(1). For example, the server(s) 112 may analyze the first video data 104(1) and second video data 104(2) to determine the poses of the first user 106(1) and second user 106(2), respectively, at various times. Frames of the second video data 104(2) that include poses of the second user 106(2) may be matched with frames of the first video data 104(1) that include corresponding poses of the first user 106(1). Based on the times associated with the frames, the performance rate for the video output 102(2) may be determined. For example, the time between different poses of the first user 106(1), such as a time between the start and end of one repetition of a fitness exercise, may be used to determine a performance rate for the first user 106(1). The time between corresponding poses of the second user 106(2) may be used to determine a performance rate for the second user 106(2). Based on the performance rates determined from the times and poses, second video output 102(2) may be generated in which the performance rate and poses of the second user 106(2) are within a threshold value of the performance rate and poses of the first user 106(1),” determining the performance rate between poses of a repetition effectively determines the ratio of movement distance to total movement distance).
Regarding claim 7, Yerushalmy in view of Alessandri discloses wherein the user movement analyzer determines a total movement distance within one exercise cycle of the user for each exercise cycle, and determines a user ratio in a current exercise cycle based on a total movement distance determined in a previous exercise cycle (Yerushalmy col. 5 lines 9-61, “video output presented to a user may be generated based on video data associated with previous performance of the activity by other users, enabling the user to compare performance with that of other users, simulate attendance in a virtual fitness class or other group environment, and so forth. Inclusion of a visual representation of the user may enable the user to directly compare current performance of an activity to previous performance by the user, or to the performance of an instructor or other users.”; also Yerushalmy col. 18 lines 11-38, “the second video data 104(2) may depict the first user 106(1) performing the activity at a previous time. For example, the first user 106(1) may wish to compare one or more characteristics of a current performance of an activity, such as the user's range of motion, to previous performance of the activity by the first user 106(1). In still other implementations, second video data 104(2) may depict one or more other users 106 performing the other activity at a previous time.”).
Regarding claim 13, Yerushalmy does not explicitly teach every limitation of wherein the expert exercise image includes a left arm exercise image and a right arm exercise image, and wherein the controller displays one of the left arm exercise image and the right arm exercise image on the image display based on information of the pulled-out wire received from the weight training equipment.
However, Alessandri discloses wherein the expert exercise image includes a left arm exercise image and a right arm exercise image, and wherein the controller displays one of the left arm exercise image and the right arm exercise image on the image display based on information of the pulled-out wire received from the weight training equipment (see Alessandri Figs. 6-8, showing a feedback display of the user performing an exercise involving both right and left arms on equipment having wires; also Alessandri [0306], “as shown in FIG. 7, two images are displayed on the screen 10 at any one time: one, labeled 12, is the sensed image and the other, labeled 11, is the reference image (derived by the processor 6) based on the data stored in the memory),” one of the displayed images is the expert reference image).
Alessandri is analogous to Yerushalmy, as both are drawn to the art of physical fitness instruction. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Yerushalmy, to include wherein the expert exercise image includes a left arm exercise image and a right arm exercise image, and wherein the controller displays one of the left arm exercise image and the right arm exercise image on the image display based on information of the pulled-out wire received from the weight training equipment, as taught by Alessandri, in order to allow the user to perform an exercise correctly, optimizing the beneficial effects associated with the exercise and reducing the risks deriving from incorrect postures that might be adopted during the performance of the exercise (Alessandri [0041]). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yerushalmy in view of Alessandri, and in further view of Kashyap et al. (hereinafter “Kashyap,” US 2024/0042281).
Regarding claim 8, Yerushalmy in view of Alessandri does not explicitly teach wherein the user movement analyzer extracts an inflection point in a movement direction of the user from the user movement distance, and extracts one exercise cycle of the user based on the inflection point.
However, Kashyap discloses wherein the user movement analyzer extracts an inflection point in a movement direction of the user from the user movement distance, and extracts one exercise cycle of the user based on the inflection point (Kashyap [0141], “In operation 1430, the system 158 determines a user is performing the activity based on the movement of the inflection points. For example, the system 158, once the model has predicted high/low points for the exercise, tracks the transitions across time in a simple state machine that increments a counter every time an individual hits a target inflection point or completes a movement cycle, where the target is a threshold of the predictive model.”).
Kashyap is analogous to Yerushalmy in view of Alessandri, as both are drawn to the art of connected fitness systems. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Yerushalmy in view of Alessandri, to include wherein the user movement analyzer extracts an inflection point in a movement direction of the user from the user movement distance, and extracts one exercise cycle of the user based on the inflection point, as taught by Kashyap, in order to enhance an exercise by classifying or detecting poses (Kashyap [0032]). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 9, Yerushalmy in view of Alessandri does not explicitly teach wherein the inflection point is formed alternately with a first inflection point in which the movement direction changes in one direction and a second inflection point in which the movement direction changes in an opposite direction to the first inflection point, and wherein the user movement analyzer extracts an interval between a pair of adjacent first inflection points as one exercise cycle of the user.
However, Kashyap discloses wherein the inflection point is formed alternately with a first inflection point in which the movement direction changes in one direction and a second inflection point in which the movement direction changes in an opposite direction to the first inflection point, and wherein the user movement analyzer extracts an interval between a pair of adjacent first inflection points as one exercise cycle of the user (Kashyap [0141], “In operation 1430, the system 158 determines a user is performing the activity based on the movement of the inflection points. For example, the system 158, once the model has predicted high/low points for the exercise, tracks the transitions across time in a simple state machine that increments a counter every time an individual hits a target inflection point or completes a movement cycle, where the target is a threshold of the predictive model.”; also Kashyap [0135], “The system 158 can utilize “inflection points,” which are demarcated as the high and low points of a repetitive motion. The system 158 can track the high and low points as the user performs an exercise to identify how many cycles of a high/low repetition a person has performed.”).
Kashyap is analogous to Yerushalmy in view of Alessandri, as both are drawn to the art of connected fitness systems. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Yerushalmy in view of Alessandri, to include wherein the inflection point is formed alternately with a first inflection point in which the movement direction changes in one direction and a second inflection point in which the movement direction changes in an opposite direction to the first inflection point, and wherein the user movement analyzer extracts an interval between a pair of adjacent first inflection points as one exercise cycle of the user, as taught by Kashyap, in order to enhance an exercise by classifying or detecting poses (Kashyap [0032]). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 10, Yerushalmy in view of Alessandri does not explicitly teach wherein the user movement analyzer determines a total movement distance within one exercise cycle of the user by summing a movement distance from one of the pair of first inflection points to a second inflection point, and a movement distance from the second inflection point to a remaining one of the pair of first inflection points, which determine the one exercise cycle.
However, Kashyap discloses wherein the user movement analyzer determines a total movement distance within one exercise cycle of the user by summing a movement distance from one of the pair of first inflection points to a second inflection point, and a movement distance from the second inflection point to a remaining one of the pair of first inflection points, which determine the one exercise cycle (Kashyap [0141], “In operation 1430, the system 158 determines a user is performing the activity based on the movement of the inflection points. For example, the system 158, once the model has predicted high/low points for the exercise, tracks the transitions across time in a simple state machine that increments a counter every time an individual hits a target inflection point or completes a movement cycle, where the target is a threshold of the predictive model.”; also Kashyap [0135], “The system 158 can utilize “inflection points,” which are demarcated as the high and low points of a repetitive motion. The system 158 can track the high and low points as the user performs an exercise to identify how many cycles of a high/low repetition a person has performed,” wherein this method of determining one exercise cycle by summing movement distances between a pair of inflection points is one obvious variation in the exact method of calculating an exercise cycle).
Kashyap is analogous to Yerushalmy in view of Alessandri, as both are drawn to the art of connected fitness systems. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Yerushalmy in view of Alessandri, to include wherein the user movement analyzer determines a total movement distance within one exercise cycle of the user by summing a movement distance from one of the pair of first inflection points to a second inflection point, and a movement distance from the second inflection point to a remaining one of the pair of first inflection points, which determine the one exercise cycle, as taught by Kashyap, in order to enhance an exercise by classifying or detecting poses (Kashyap [0032]). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yerushalmy in view of Alessandri, and in further view of David et al. (hereinafter “David,” US 2023/0110715).
Regarding claim 11, Yerushalmy in view of Alessandri does not explicitly teach wherein the data storage stores an exercise guide voice matched to a corresponding image frame to correspond to the expert movement distance, and wherein the controller synchronizes and outputs the exercise guide voice when displaying the expert exercise image on the image display, and outputs the voice in synchronization with a display of the matched image frame on the image display.
However, David discloses wherein the data storage stores an exercise guide voice matched to a corresponding image frame to correspond to the expert movement distance, and wherein the controller synchronizes and outputs the exercise guide voice when displaying the expert exercise image on the image display, and outputs the voice in synchronization with a display of the matched image frame on the image display (David [0169], “The smartphone 500 is further configured to display visual images and prompts that guide the user through a particular exercise program selected by the user. The visual images and prompts can be, for example, pre-recorded or live video of an instructor, or an animation demonstrating, for example, the specific repetitive movements that the user should perform, the speed and pace of the repetitions, the body position of the user, etc. The smartphone 500 also can be configured to emit audible dialog and prompts to help guide the user through the exercise session. For example, the smartphone 500 can be configured to emit verbal instructions synchronized with the visual images being displayed; to generate a voice cue notifying the user that the user has competed half of an exercise set, and another voice cue when the user has competed 90 percent of the exercise set, etc.”).
David is analogous to Yerushalmy in view of Alessandri, as both are drawn to the art of interactive exercise systems. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Yerushalmy in view of Alessandri, to include wherein the data storage stores an exercise guide voice matched to a corresponding image frame to correspond to the expert movement distance, and wherein the controller synchronizes and outputs the exercise guide voice when displaying the expert exercise image on the image display, and outputs the voice in synchronization with a display of the matched image frame on the image display, as taught by David, in order to encourage the user into engaging and meeting workout goals (David [0007]). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yerushalmy in view of Alessandri, and in further view of Watterson (US 2020/0254295).
Regarding claim 12, Yerushalmy in view of Alessandri does not explicitly teach wherein the weight training equipment provides an exercise load based on a pair of wires, and wherein the user movement distance is based on a pulled-out position of each of the pair of wires.
Yerushalmy does disclose measuring movement by sensors attached to fitness equipment (Yerushalmy col. 6 lines 25-30, “a sensor may be associated with an object that may be manipulated by a user 106, such as a piece of fitness equipment, and may generate data indicative of a position, orientation, or rate of movement of the user 106(1) or object.”).
However, Watterson discloses wherein the weight training equipment provides an exercise load based on a pair of wires, and wherein the user movement distance is based on a pulled-out position of each of the pair of wires (Watterson [0162-0164], “the first pull cable and/or the second pull cable has been extended to within a threshold of being fully extended… a user has moved past a threshold distance from the exercise machine… a barbell has moved past a threshold distance from the exercise machine.”; see also Watterson Figs. 2A-C).
Watterson is analogous to Yerushalmy in view of Alessandri, as both are drawn to the art of exercise equipment. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Yerushalmy in view of Alessandri, to include wherein the weight training equipment provides an exercise load based on a pair of wires, and wherein the user movement distance is based on a pulled-out position of each of the pair of wires, as taught by Watterson, since it would have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Hinnebusch (US 2002/0055419) System and method to improve fitness training, having a communications network connecting a computer with exercise equipment.
Belsham et al. (US 2023/0405404) An exercise device, having a board and pull wires similar to those of the instant invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Stephen Alvesteffer whose telephone number is (571)272-8680. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-6:00.
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, 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 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.
/STEPHEN ALVESTEFFER/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights