DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1: The claims are directed to a method and apparatus which falls within one of the statutory categories of invention. Step 2A, Prong One: Independent claim(s) 1 & 13, recite(s) receiving, inputting and outputting and independent claim 7 recite a computation part and a storage part. The claims and background of the application do not put any limits on the plain meanings of receiving, inputting and outputting. Independent claim 7 recites a computation part, input part and storage part and is recited at a high level of generality, i.e. as a generic input, processor and memory performing generic functions. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the steps is that those steps fall with the mental process grouping of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, selection by a human and/or can be presented using a piece of paper, including receiving, inputting and outputting. Step 2A, Prong Two: The claims recite an input part, computation part and storage part. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claims. Again, the input part, computation part and storage part perform their generic functions and is recited at a high level of generality. With these limitations, the input part, storage part and computation part are used as a tool to perform the generic function of inputting, processing and storing data. Therefore, in these limitations the input part, computation part and storage part are used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step, 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic input, processor and memory. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practice application, and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. Step 2B: As explained in the Step 2A, Prong Two, these are two additional elements. The additional elements of a “input”, “processor” and “memory” in the limitations are at best mere instructions to “apply” the abstract ideas, which cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional elements were both found to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two, because they were determined to be insignificant limitations as necessary data processing or storing. As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the recitations of “input, a processor and memory” are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to processing information and storing information and are well-understood, routine and conventional activity. Therefore, even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception with an input part, computation part and storage part and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. So, these claims are in eligible.
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) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (U.S. Publication Number 2014/0363076) in view of Shiau et al. (U.S. Publication Number 2023/0305624) and Wang et al. (U.S. Publication Number 2023/0298204).
Referring to claims 1 & 7, Han et al. discloses receiving, by an analysis apparatus, pose information of a user (Fig. 8); inputting, by the analysis apparatus, the pose information of the user into an analysis model (820); and outputting, by the analysis apparatus, a pose recognition result on the basis of an output value of the analysis model, (830) wherein the analysis model is a deep Gaussian mixture model (paragraph 0015). Han et al. does not disclose wherein the pose information includes movement information measured by a sensor attached to a wearable device positioned on the user’s whole body or on a part thereof and wherein the pose information is denoted. However, Shiau et al. teaches wherein the pose information includes movement information measured by a sensor attached to a wearable device positioned on the user’s whole body or on a part thereof (paragraph 0007). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include wherein the pose information includes movement information measured by a sensor attached to a wearable device positioned on the user’s whole body or on a part thereof, as disclosed by Shiau et al., incorporated into Han et al. in order to tracking the moving of the body. Han et al./Shiau et al. does not disclose wherein the pose information is denoted. However, Wang et al. teaches wherein the pose information is denoted (paragraph 0087). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include wherein the pose information is denoted, as disclosed by Wang et al., incorporated into Han et al./Shiau et al. in order to measure the distance between the projected joint locations and corresponding estimated joint locations.
Referring to claims 2 & 8, Han et al. discloses wherein the pose information is information measured by a sensor attached to a wearable device positioned on the user’s whole body or on a part thereof (paragraph 0043).
Referring to claims 3 & 9, Han et al. discloses wherein the pose information of the user includes pose information for a skeleton model representing the user (paragraph 0172).
Referring to claims 4 & 10, Han et al. discloses wherein the pose information of the user includes at least one selected from a group of a position, a direction, and a speed of each part of the user’s body (paragraph 0134).
Referring to claims 5 & 11, Han et al. discloses wherein each node of the deep Gaussian mixture model is Gaussian probability distribution of probability that the pose information is for a joint in a pose to be analyzed (paragraph 0015).
Referring to claims 6 & 12, Han et al. discloses wherein the deep Gaussian mixture model is a model generated by mixing Gaussian probability distributions for each joint in each pose (paragraph 0015).
Referring to claim 13, Han et al. discloses outputting, by a virtual exercise system, a coach’s pose to a user (830); acquiring, by the virtual exercise system, pose information of the user (paragraph 0125); recognizing, by the virtual exercise system, the user’s pose through the analysis apparatus of claim 1 (paragraph 0049); and comparing, by the virtual exercise system, the user’s pose recognized and the coach’s pose to evaluate the user’s pose (paragraph 0064 & 0099).
Referring to claim 14, Han et al. discloses wherein the coach’s pose is a previously stored pose of the coach (510).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-7 and 9-17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed 8/5/2024 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. These amendments do not make an improvement in the function of the structural elements, in this case, sensor and wearable device. These elements are merely being used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. Further, this amendment is still considered a mental process that can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. The applicant also now includes a formula which makes the claims ineligible.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KESHA FRISBY whose telephone number is (571)272-8774. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 730AM-4PM.
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, Xuan Thai can be reached at 571-272-7147. 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.
/KESHA FRISBY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715