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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Fig. 2 is illegible. 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, 8, 15, and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“extract pose data” recited in claim 1, ln. 9, claim 8, ln. 5, and claim 15, ln. 7 should likely read “extracted pose data”;
“determining the feedback is determined using” recited in claim 19, ln. 3 should likely read “determining the feedback
“solution space is based on” recited in claim 19, ln. 5 should likely read “solution space
“stretch value is determined” recited in claim 19, ln. 6 & 7 should likely read "stretch value .
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 8, analyzed as representative claim:
[Step 1] Claim 8 recites in part “A method”, which falls within the “process” statutory category of invention under 35 U.S.C. 101.
[Step 2A – Prong 1] The claim recites a series of steps which can practically be performed by one or more humans through mental process (i.e., observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion) (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Claim 8 recites: A method of providing exercise coaching comprises:
receiving input data from a user, wherein the input data comprises a plurality of images of the user performing an exercise (insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., data gathering));
extracting pose data from the input data (mental process: observation/evaluation);
determining whether a difference between the extract pose data and a reference is less than a predetermined threshold value (mental process: observation/evaluation);
determining muscle stretch information, in response to the difference being less than the predetermined threshold value, from the input data (mental process: observation/evaluation/judgment); and
determining feedback to provide to the user for increasing a degree of muscle stretch during a subsequent performance of the exercise relative to the determined muscle stretch information (mental process: evaluation/judgment/opinion).
The limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass mental processes, as indicated above. That is, a human (e.g., coach, physical therapist, etc.) could visually observe/determine pose data from received/gathered data (plurality of images of a user performing an exercise), mentally compare extracted pose data to a reference and determine if the difference is less than a predetermined threshold value, mentally determine muscle stretch information based on the gathered data, and mentally determine feedback accordingly. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
[Step 2A – Prong 2] The claim fails to recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional limitation of “receiving input data from a user, wherein the input data comprises a plurality of images of the user performing an exercise” is directed to the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or other technology (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), recites a “particular machine” to apply or use the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(b)), recites a particular transformation of an article to a different thing or state (see MPEP 2106.05(c)), or recites any other meaningful limitation (see MPEP 2106.05(e)).
Accordingly, the claim is directed to the abstract idea.
[Step 2B] As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim does not further include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional limitation of “receiving input data from a user” amounts to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 1 is a system comprising: a non-transitory computer readable medium configured to store instructions thereon, and a processor connected to the non-transitory computer readable medium and configured to execute the instructions to perform the limitations of claim 8 recited above, while independent claim 15 is a non-transitory computer readable medium configured to store instructions for providing exercise coaching, wherein the instructions are configured to cause a processor to perform the operations of claim 8 recited above. These additional limitations are recited at a high level of generality such that they do not amount to a particular machine or technical improvement thereof, nor do they represent an improvement in other technology. Rather, the generic manner in which the additional elements are claimed amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea in a computer environment and/or to utilize generic computer components as tools to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f) & (h)). The Specification further demonstrates that the additional elements are recited for their well-understood, routine, and conventional functionality, wherein the Specification refers to the elements in a manner that indicates that they are sufficiently well-known that the Specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy enablement (see Specification, Fig. 6; [0077-0078], “In some embodiments, the processor 602 is a central processing unit (CPU), a multi-processor, a distributed processing system, an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), and/or a suitable processing unit. In some embodiments, computer readable storage medium 604 is an electronic, magnetic, optical, electromagnetic, infrared, and/or semiconductor system (or apparatus or device). For example, the computer readable storage medium 604 includes a semiconductor or solid-state memory, a magnetic tape, a removable computer diskette, a random access memory (RAM), a read-only memory (ROM), a rigid magnetic disk, and/or an optical disk. In some embodiments using optical disks, the computer readable storage medium 604 includes a compact disk-read only memory (CD-ROM), a compact disk-read/write (CD-R/W), and/or a digital video disc (DVD).”). Thus, the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept). Thereby, claims 1 and 15 are also not patent eligible.
Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are dependent from claims 1, 8, and 15, respectively, and therefore recite the same abstract idea noted above. While dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 may have a narrower scope than the independent claims, the claims fail to recite additional limitations that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more. For example:
Claims 2, 9, and 16 further recite a mental process (evaluation/judgment/opinion) of determining feedback to provide to the user for correcting a pose of the user based on previous user performance. Accordingly, the analysis performed on the independent claims above is also applicable on the recited dependent claims, and the recited claims are thereby also not patent eligible.
Claims 3-6, 10-13, and 17-19 further define the mental processes of determining muscle stretch information and feedback, discussed above, wherein said mental processes are to be performed by a trained neutral network (NN). However, the trained NN is recited at a high level of generality and merely amounts to instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computing component (off-the-shelf neural network) and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular environment (machine learning). Moreover, training and updating the trained neural network are directed to insignificant extra-solution activity, wherein these limitations encompass well-understood, routine, and conventional activities that do not integrate the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Thus, these additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept). Thus, the analysis performed on the independent claims above is also applicable on these recited dependent claims, and the recited claims are thereby also not patent eligible.
Claims 7, 14, and 20 further define previously gathered data (predetermined threshold value), and therefore recite insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering). Additionally, and/or alternatively, the predetermined threshold value could be a mentally-determined value, which may be determined based on user information (e.g., an elderly user or an injured user may be assigned a larger predetermined threshold value than that of a younger or fit user). Accordingly, the additional limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more, and thus, the recited claims are also not patent eligible.
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)(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.
Claims 1-2, 8-9, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kang (U.S. Pub. 2020/0197746 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kang discloses a system for providing exercise coaching (Figs. 1-2; [0002]) comprises:
a non-transitory computer readable medium configured to store instructions thereon (Fig. 2; [0048]; [0053]); and
a processor connected to the non-transitory computer readable medium, wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions (Fig. 2; [0048-0049]) for:
receiving input data from a user, wherein the input data comprises a plurality of images of the user performing an exercise (Figs. 2-3; [0027]; [0041]; [0043-0044], acquiring a plurality of image frames of a user’s posture (i.e., of a rehabilitation exercise) from a user apparatus (e.g., smart phone, tablet PC, laptop PC, or PDA) comprising a camera);
extracting pose data from the input data (Figs. 3-12; [0041]; [0044-0045]; [0055-0057]; [0071-0072]; [0083]; [0086]; [0089]; [0100]; [0102]; [0104], acquiring pose (posture) (i.e., arms raised above head) and pose/posture data (e.g., features points and corresponding user posture lines) of the user);
determining whether a difference between the extract pose data and a reference is less than a predetermined threshold value ([0022]; [0045]; [0078]; [0095]; [0097]; [0110]; [0113-0114], wherein user posture lines and/or object lines are compared with tutoring target lines to determine a match, wherein a match is indicative of an angle difference (e.g., first calculated angle difference or second calculated angle difference) less than a predetermined threshold value (e.g., within 10 degrees));
determining muscle stretch information, in response to the difference being less than the predetermined threshold value, from the input data (Figs. 7-13; [0022]; [0057]; [0083]; [0109-0110]; [0113-0114], wherein, when the determined angle difference is within a present range, angles (muscle stretch information) of the user’s body parts (e.g., muscles, such as arms or legs) are determined and used to generate posture line information and guide lines); and
determining feedback to provide to the user for increasing a degree of muscle stretch during a subsequent performance of the exercise relative to the determined muscle stretch information ([0022]; [0113-0114], where a second calculated angle difference between a user object line and first correction tutoring target line, wherein the user is able to easily follow the low tutoring level provided by the first correction tutoring image and target line(s), is used to generate a second correction tutoring image and corresponding target line(s) (feedback) which may have a greater movement angle (increased degree of muscle stretch), thus increasing the tutoring level during a subsequent performance of the exercise).
Regarding claim 2, Kang further discloses wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions for determining feedback to provide to the user for correcting a pose of the user in the subsequent performance of the exercise in response to the difference being equal to or greater than the predetermined threshold value ([0081]; [0091]; [0109-0110], wherein the feedback may be guide lines and/or adjusted target lines for a pose/posture of the user).
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 is a method of claim 1 and is thereby rejected for like reasoning.
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 is a method of claim 2 and is thereby rejected for like reasoning.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 is a non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1 and is thereby rejected for like reasoning.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 is a non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 2 and is thereby rejected for like reasoning.
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.
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 3-6, 10-13, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang in view of Kruger et al. (U.S. Pub. 2024/0198177 A1) (hereinafter “Kruger”).
Regarding claim 3, Kang further discloses wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions for determining the muscle stretch information using a trained neural network (NN) ([0052]; [0055-0057]; [0063]; [0083]; [0109-0110], wherein a neutral network, generated based on training/learning data, may be used to extract feature points from images of the user posture, used to determine angles (muscle stretch information) of the user’s body parts (e.g., muscles, such as arms or legs) and corresponding user posture lines).
Kang may not further explicitly disclose wherein the trained NN is trained using videos of others performing the exercise. However, Kruger, directed to presenting exercise content, monitoring user performance via captured images of the user, and providing feedback such as corrections to the user’s exercise form ([0046]), teaches wherein a neutral network may be trained using a dataset of annotated training images, which may include video images of people performing exercises that are annotated to identify desired anatomical points (e.g., hands, feet, elbows, shoulders, head, etc.) ([0092-0093]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to train the neural network used for extracting feature points of a user which are used to determine angles of the user’s body parts (muscle stretch information) and corresponding user posture lines in Kang based on video data of a plurality of users performing the exercises/poses and which are annotated to identify desired anatomical points, taught by Kruger, in order to train the neural network as an image classifier to determine the muscle stretch (angle) information of the user (Kruger, [0092-0093]; [0122], wherein using the trained neutral network, the relative positions of anatomical points may be used to identify a pose or exercise (e.g., estimating a current angle of the knees and hips of a user during a squat)).
Regarding claim 4, Kang further discloses wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions for updating the trained NN using the muscle stretch information ([0052]; [0055-0058]; [0063]; [0083]).
Regarding claim 5, Kang further discloses wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions for determining the feedback using the trained NN to select a feedback option from a solution space ([0011]; [0055-0056]; [0104]; [0110]; [0113-0114], wherein the feedback/guidance is provided using a machine learning model (e.g., trained NN), wherein it is inherent that a trained NN determines an output based on a solution space).
Regarding claim 6, Kang further discloses wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions for selecting the feedback option from the solution space based on an initial muscle stretch value and a target muscle stretch value, the initial muscle stretch value is determined based on the muscle stretch information, and the target muscle stretch value is determined based on user information of the user performing the exercise ([0011]; [0055-0057]; [0083]; [0088]; [0091]; [0104]; [0109-0110]; [0113-0114], wherein the feedback/guidance is provided using the machine learning model (e.g., trained NN) and based on user posture/object lines (corresponding to angles (i.e., initial muscle stretch information) of the user’s body parts) in comparison to target lines (i.e., target muscle stretch value(s)), which may be changed to be customized based on user information (i.e., the user posture image)), and the feedback is usable to improve decision making for the user for moving at least one body part of the user (Figs. 4-12; [0015]; [0069]; [0076-0077]; [0081]; [0097], e.g., wherein a guide line and/or text are usable by the user to guide the user posture/object line toward a target line based on an angle difference between the lines).
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 is a method of claim 3 and is thereby rejected for like reasoning.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 is a method of claim 4 and is thereby rejected for like reasoning.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 is a method of claim 5 and is thereby rejected for like reasoning.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 is a method of claim 6 and is thereby rejected for like reasoning.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 is a non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 3 and is thereby rejected for like reasoning.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 is a non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 4 and is thereby rejected for like reasoning.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 is a non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 6 and is thereby rejected for like reasoning.
Claims 7, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang in view of Hall et al. (U.S. Pub. 2018/0317813 A1) (hereinafter “Hall”).
Regarding claim 7, Kang may not further explicitly disclose wherein the predetermined threshold value (preset range) is based on user information of the user performing the exercise. However, Hall, directed to a monitoring system for monitoring a user via detecting position, orientation, and angular velocity data of a sensor module attached/worn by the user during an exercise and comparing the data to ideal positions and orientations and ideal angular velocity threshold rates ([0004]; [0071-0073]), teaches wherein the ideal positions and threshold rates of exercise may be customized to an individual user depending on user information, such as age, gender, physical conditions (e.g., height, weight), and medical history ([0043]; [0071-0073]; [0082]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set the predefined threshold value (preset value) in Kang based on user information, as taught by Hall, in order to customize the exercise/posture and feedback to the user (Hall, [0043]; [0072-0073]).
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 is a method of claim 7 and is thereby rejected for like reasoning.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 is a non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 7 and is thereby rejected for like reasoning.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Pub. 2026/0038665 A1 – This reference teaches comparing user form to target form, determining an overlap, and generating feedback accordingly (e.g., a score based on the overlap and/or depiction of the overlap).
U.S. Pub. 2024/0382806 A1 – This reference, directed to analyzing athletic motion, teaches wherein levels of prescribed exercises are adjusted automatically (up or down) according to the most recent performance of a user.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALYSSA N BRANDLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4280. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Dmitry Suhol, can be reached at (571)272-4430. 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.
/ALYSSA N BRANDLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3715