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 § 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, 5, 6, 9-11, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Devine, US 2021/0252369 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Devine discloses: an information processing apparatus, comprising circuitry configured to:
play a moving image displayed on a display according to a motion state of a user (See abstract, “the processor causes concurrent display of video content and a workout intensity representation through a display device (801,1402).”);
and
control a playback of the moving image and a screen of the display based on a script including a first command and a second command (See “first playback position”), wherein
the first command describes controlling the playback of the moving image in association with a first playback time of the moving image (“workout intensity representation has a visual characteristic based on a comparison between a physical activity metric for a user of the electronic device that corresponds to a first playback position of the video content and the physical activity metric for a group of users who participated in a workout while watching the video content based on the physical activity of the group of users that corresponds to the first playback position of the video content”- the workout intensity representation changes in response to activity data received at first and second playback positions- and is different for each of the first and second playback positions, as disclosed in [0021].), and
the second command describes controlling the screen of the display in association with a second playback time of the moving image (See second workout. See 1060 in figure 10I, “halfway point”).
Regarding claim 2, Devine discloses: the information processing apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a memory that stores the script (See [0142], “In some embodiments, a widget includes an HTML (Hypertext Markup Language) file, a CSS (Cascading Style Sheets) file, and a JavaScript file. In some embodiments, a widget includes an XML (Extensible Markup Language) file and a JavaScript file (e.g., Yahoo! Widgets)”).
Regarding claim 5, Devine discloses: the information processing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the script describes, in association with the second playback time of the moving image, at least one of a text to be displayed on the display or a file name of an image to be displayed on the display (See figure 10j “Halfway point”, as disclosed in [0313].).\
Regarding claim 6, Devine discloses: the information processing apparatus of claim 5, wherein a case that the text to be displayed on the display is described in the script, a period for displaying the text on the display is described in the script in association with the second playback time of the moving image (See playback progress indicator 824AA as disclosed in [0318] with repsect to figures 8G-8M.), and
in a case that the file name of the image to be displayed on the display is described in the script, another period for displaying the image on the display is described in the script in association with the second playback time of the moving image.
Regarding claim 9, Devine discloses: the information processing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the script describes a predetermined processing type in association with one of a plurality of playback times including the first playback time and the second playback time of the moving image (See [0411], disclosing “in accordance with a determination that the a first type of event has occurred (e.g., a predefined milestone has been achieved (e.g., a threshold value has been obtained for a particular physical activity metric), a particular playback position of the video content has been reached), the electronic device visually emphasizes, via the display device, at least a portion of the one or more representations of the physical activity metrics without visually emphasizing a different portion of the one or more representations of the physical activity metrics).”- Visually emphasizing at least portion of the representation of the physical activity is a “predetermined processing type”, and occurs in association with reaching a predefine “milestone”, e.g. a playback time or other threshold value.
Regarding claim 10, Devine discloses: the information processing apparatus of claim 9, wherein the circuitry is configured to control the playback of the moving image in association with the one of the plurality of playback times described in the script (See [0411], disclosing “in accordance with a determination that the a first type of event has occurred (e.g., a predefined milestone has been achieved (e.g., a threshold value has been obtained for a particular physical activity metric), a particular playback position of the video content has been reached), the electronic device visually emphasizes, via the display device, at least a portion of the one or more representations of the physical activity metrics without visually emphasizing a different portion of the one or more representations of the physical activity metrics).”- Visually emphasizing at least portion of the representation of the physical activity is a “a control of the playback of the moving image”, and occurs in association with reaching a predefine “milestone”, e.g. a playback time or other threshold value.), based on the processing type.
Regarding claim 11, Devine discloses: an information processing system, comprising:
the information processing apparatus of claim 1; and
a motion sensor to output motion state information indicating the motion state of the user (See [0214], “motion sensor 538”.).
Non-transitory recording medium claim 16 is directed to a non-transitory recording medium storing a plurality of instructions which, when executed by one or more processors, causes the processors to perform method steps which correspond to the steps performed by the apparatus of claim 1. Therefore, non-transitory recording medium claim 16 corresponds to apparatus claim 1, and is rejected for the same reasons of anticipation as give above for claim 1.
Information processing method claim 17 is directed to a non-transitory recording medium storing a plurality of instructions which, when executed by one or more processors, causes the processors to perform method steps which correspond to the steps performed by the apparatus of claim 1. Therefore, information processing method claim 17 corresponds to apparatus claim 1, and is rejected for the same reasons of anticipation as give above for claim 1.
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 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Devine, in view of Kwatra, US 2022/00001238 A1.
Regarding claim 3, Devine discloses the limitations of claim 2, upon which depends claim 3, but does not disclose: the information processing apparatus of claim 2, wherein the user includes a single user and a plurality of users,
the script includes a first script and a second script, the first script corresponding to the single user, the second script corresponding to a group of the plurality of the users, and
the circuitry is configured to acquire one of the first script and the second script from the memory according to an input for selecting a corresponding one of the single user and the group of the plurality of users.
Kwatra, discloses in an analogous art directed to an augmented reality (AR) workout program an AR server program that can be presented either for a single user, or a alternatively for a plurality of users.
Incorporating the option for a single participant or multiple participants into the workout program disclosed in Devine would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the Applicant’s effective filing date. Incorporating this feature would have entailed simply combining the prior art elements respectively disclosed in Devine and in Ingram, without changing their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results for one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc. See 2143.1.A. 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395.
Regarding claim 12, Devine discloses the limitations of claim 11, upon which claim 12 depends. However, Devine does not disclose: the information processing system of claim 11, further comprising:
the display that displays the moving image, wherein the display is one of a head-mounted display device and a glasses-type display
Kwatra discloses using an AR headset in conjunction with the AR workout program disclosed therein. See headset 116 in [0024].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the Applicant’s effective filing date to incorporate an AR display headset in the workout device and program disclosed in Devine, in order to present a user with data and other virtual components to a user with a real-world background setting. See Kwatra, [0027].
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Devine in view of Ingram, US 2017/0365186 A1.
Regarding claim 4, Devine discloses the limitations of claim 2, upon which claim 4 depends, but does not disclose: the information processing apparatus of claim 2, wherein the circuitry is configured to display, on the display, a quiz for the user during or after the playback of the moving image; and
display on the display, or store in the memory, an answer of the user to the quiz (See [0065], “the system may receive indications from the wellness program provider that the user has completed certain tasks, such as watching a video or taking an online quiz.”).
Incorporating a quiz into the exercise program of Devine would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the Applicant’s effective filing date. Incorporating this feature would have entailed simply combining the prior art elements respectively disclosed in Devine and in Ingram, without changing their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results for one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc. See 2143.1.A. 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Devine, in view of Woltermann, US 2020/0406119 A1
Regarding claim 13, Devine discloses the limitations of claim 1, upon which depends claim 13. Devine does not disclose: an information processing system, comprising:
the information processing apparatus of claim 1; and
a server communicably connected to the information processing apparatus and including additional circuitry, wherein the additional circuitry is configured to transmit the moving image and the script to the information processing apparatus in response to a request from the information processing apparatus.
However, placing a workout program on a server, and transmitting video pertaining a workout program from the server to a client upon request is disclosed in an analogous art by Woltermann. Woltermann discloses in [0044] transmitting media data 126 from a remote system 108 to a user or users 112, for instance following a live stream of an instructor 106.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the Applicant’s effective filing date to incorporate server/client model disclosed in Woltermann for a fitness application into the fitness application disclosed in Devine, in order to allow for instance, live streaming of an instructor over the internet. See Woltermann, [0044]. Incorporating this feature would have merely entailed simply combining the prior art elements respectively disclosed in Devine and in Woltermann, without changing their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results for one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc. See 2143.1.A. 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Devine in view of Woltermann discloses the limitations of claim 13, upon which claim 15 depends. This combination, specifically Woltermann, further discloses: the information processing system of claim 13, wherein
the circuitry is configured to transmit the moving image to the display via a network.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Devine in view of Woltermann discloses the limitations of claim 13, upon which claim 15 depends. This combination, specifically Woltermann, further discloses: the information processing system of claim 13, further comprising a motion sensor to transmit motion state information indicating the motion state of the user to the information processing apparatus via a network. (See Woltermann [0128], “Motion of the fitness apparatus 120 functions as input”)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 7, Devine discloses the information processing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the script describes the first playback time in association with an additional playback time corresponding to a jump destination of the moving image.
Regarding claim 8, the information processing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the script describes the first playback time in association with another file name of another moving image that is different from the moving image, said another moving image being a jump destination.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, there is no disclosure or suggestion in the prior art of an additional playback corresponding to a jumpy destination of a moving image.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE M LOTFI whose telephone number is (571)272-8762. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00.
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, Brian Pendleton can be reached at 571-272-7527. 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.
/KYLE M LOTFI/ Examiner, Art Unit 2425
Prosecution Insights