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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The response received on 9/4/2026 has been placed in the file and was considered by the examiner. An action on the merit follows.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on 4 September 2026 have been fully considered. Response to these amendments is provided below.
Summary of Amendment/ Arguments and Examiner’s Response:
The applicant as amended the claim and has argued that the prior art does not teach the claimed limitations.
All arguments are moot in view of new grounds of rejection, below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication NO. 20130174073 (Ash et al) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No 20170087415 (Nandimandalam et al).
Regarding claim 1, Ash et al discloses a method (fig. 5) comprising: at an electronic device (fig. 2) including one or more processors (fig. 2, item 210), a non-transitory memory (page 2, paragraphs 25-26), and a display (fig. 2, item 222, 215): displaying, on the display (fig. 2, item 215), a target visual representation of a user that is generated based on a current body assessment of the user (fig. 5, item 514), and a first target body-part size for a first body part, and target parameter (page 8, paragraph 75), wherein the current body assessment includes a first current body-part size for the first body part, the waist circumference, defined by the percentile (page 8, paragraph 75), and wherein each of the first current body-part size and the first target body-part size represents a measurement of a spatial extent of the first body part, a waist circumference (page 8, paragraph 75); making a determination on the first current body part satisfying a condition (fig. 9, item 622 is stable), and in accordance with a determination that the first current body-part size satisfies the condition, overlaying, on a first portion of the target visual representation that corresponds to the first body part, a first indicator to indicate that the first body part satisfies the first target dimension body-part size for the first body part (fig. 9, item 622 overlaid on waist for waist circumference).
Ash et al does not disclose expressly making a determination on the first current body part satisfying a condition is determining, based on a comparison of the first current body-part size with the first target body-part size, whether the first current body-part size satisfies the first target body-part size/ that the condition is the first current body part size satisfies the first target body-part size.
Nandimandalam et al discloses having a target 3D model generated based on current body part size and target body part size (page 5, paragraph 47), and making a determination on the first current body part satisfying a condition is determining, based on a comparison of the first current body-part size (page 7, paragraph 67, fig.3, item 326) with the first target body-part size (fig. 3, item 363, page 7, paragraph 67), whether the first current body-part size satisfies the first target body-part size/ that the condition is the first current body part size satisfies the first target body-part size (page 7, paragraph 67), and further outputting a notification (page 7, paragraph 67).
Ash et al and Nandimandalam et al are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor, i.e. fitness monitors.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a determining if the body part meets the target for outputting.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide a more user-friendly system by allowing the user to see their progress.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the method of Ash et al with the body size comparison of Nandimandalam et al to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Claims 11 and 20 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. Thus, the arguments analogous to that presented above for claim 1 are equally applicable to claims 11 and 20. Claims 11 and 20 distinguish from claim 1 only in that they are device and non-transitory computer readable medium claims. Ash et al teaches further this feature, i.e. fig. 2, item 214, 214, 210 and page 2 paragraphs 25-26.
Regarding claim 2, Ash discloses obtaining images of the user from EMR (pages 3-4, paragraph 35,37, fig. 5, item 510); and determining the current body assessment of the user based on the images of the user because the health forecaster uses the EMR (page 3-4, paragraph 35, fig. 5, item 514). Nandimandalam et al also discloses obtaining images of the user (page 7, paragraph 69, 70); and determining current body assessment (page 7, paragraph 70).
Regarding claim 3, Nandimandalam et al discloses the electronic device further includes a camera(page 7, paragraph 69) and wherein obtaining the images comprises capturing the images with the camera (page 7, paragraph 69).
Regarding claim 4, Nandimandalam et al discloses the images depict the user from different points of view, including certain body part images (page 7, paragraph 70).
Regarding claim 5, Ash et al discloses providing the health related data as an input to a body-assessment classifier (fig. 5, item 510); and receiving the current body assessment as an output from the body-assessment classifier (fig. 5, item 514), and that health related data includes images (page 4, paragraph 37).
Regarding claim 6, Ash et al discloses the target visual representation is further generated based on a second target body-part metric for a second body part, the current body assessment further includes a second current body-part metric for the second body part, i.e. health or cardiovascular health (page 8, paragraph 75), and, further comprising: detecting a user input, user decisions, that specifies the first target body-part size for the first body part and the second target body-part metric for the second body part (page 8, paragraph 75); determining whether the second current body-part metric satisfies a condition (fig. 9, item 618, page 9, paragraph 85); and in accordance with a determination that the second current body-part metric does not satisfy the condition, overlaying, on a second portion of the target visual representation that corresponds to the second body part, a second indicator (fig. 9, item 618). Nandimandalam et al discloses a second body part metric can also be a second body part size, i.e. chest size, other body parts (page 8, paragraph 73), the second current body-part size and the second target body-part size are expressed in units of length (page 1, paragraph 12), determining, based on a comparison of the second current body-part size with the second target body-part size, determining whether the second current body part size satisfies the condition of the second target body part size/ the determination of the second current body-part size does not satisfy the second target body part size, the same comparison that occurs in page 7, paragraph 67 for other body parts, when the target is not achieved, as in in the month of march in fig. 3.
Regarding claim 7, Nandimandalam et al discloses obtaining sensor data from a wearable device (page 8, paragraph 75, page 2, paragraph 18); and determining the current body assessment of the user based on the sensor data because the sensing data is from the wearable device (page 8, paragraph 75, page 2, paragraph 18).
Regarding claim 8, Ash et al discloses detecting a user input that specifies body measurements of the user, i.e. a weight (page 4, paragraph 44, fig. 5, item 510); and determining the current body assessment based on the body measurements (fig. 5, item 514).
Regarding claim 9, Ash et al discloses generating the target visual representation comprises: generating a current visual representation of the user based on the current body assessment of the user (fig. 5, item 510); and modifying the current visual representation of the user based on the first body-part target dimension for the first body part to generate the target visual representation by inputting the targets in fig. 7 and modifying the representation to fig. 8, 9 item 610 (fig. 5, item 516).
Regarding claim 10, Ash et al discloses the target visual representation (fig. 9, item 610) is further a function of fitness program data, a function of fitness (fig. 9, item 814) program data (page 2, paragraph 24)
Claims 12- 19 are rejected for the same reasons as claims 2- 9, respectively. Thus, the arguments analogous to that presented above for claims 2- 9 are equally applicable to claims 12- 19 . Claims 12- 19 distinguish from claims 2- 9 only in that they have different dependencies, both of which have been previously rejected. Therefore, prior art applies.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kathleen Yuan Dulaney whose telephone number is (571)272-2902. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9AM-5PM.
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, Emily Terrell can be reached at 5712703717. 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.
/KATHLEEN Y DULANEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2666 9/21/2026
