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 .
Response to Amendment
The objection to the claims and the specifications have been withdrawn in view of the applicants appendments filed on May 19, 2026.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 11 objected to because of the following informalities: "the recording booth" should be "a recording booth". "the recording booth" was not introduction from the dependent claim or within the claim itself. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 10, and 12-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lianides et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0105389).
Regarding claim 1, Lianides discloses a video recording system for video (paragraph 1, line(s) 1 "The present invention relates generally to a system") compositing, comprising: a first monitor positioned in a gaze area of a user configured for outputting a live video of the user and a basic posture still image displayed to be superimposed on the live video of the user (paragraph 14, line(s) 15-16 "an audio and video displaying device 110 (e.g., a computer monitor, a laptop or tablet's screen display, or the like)", also, paragraph 12, line(s) 1-4 "FIG. 5 is diagram illustrating the user live video feed with the superposed skeleton image displayed in the user interface as shown in FIG. 3 when the user is doing an exercise correctly; and"; also, para 5, “creating a superposed skeleton image onto the user body image displayed on the user live stream using the user frontend application”); a recording apparatus configured for recording the user (Lianides: paragraph 5, line(s) 10-12 " user interfacing device further includes a user video capturing device, a user audio capturing device"); and an image controller configured for transmitting the basic posture still image and the live video of the user to the first monitor on the basis of a user video transmitted from the recording apparatus and changing the basic posture still image transmitted to the first monitor when an image conversion condition is met while recording the live video of the user (para 16, “user interface 114 and the provider interface 120 accessed via the user internet browser 116 and the provider internet browser 122 to send, receive, and/or share (collectively hereinafter referred to as "communicate"): (a) at least one video data stream and audio data stream during the ARPT using Twilio video chat API, an equivalence such as WebRTC, Pubnub, TokBox, or the like (hereinafter collectively referred to "interactive communication API" 192) over a network 119; and (b) at least one data stream via Twilio DataTrack API, an equivalence such as a web socket, or a web socket interface such as socket.io or the like (collectively hereinafter referred as "data communication API" 194) over the network 119. The video stream sends and receives video data 126 between the user interface 114 and the provider interface 120, and the frontend applications (118, 124) render the video data 126 for the user and the provider to see.”; also, para 47, “If the user is in the correct pose for a given number of frames consecutively (e.g., ≥5 frames), the user pose is considered matched to the target pose, and the reference image shifts to the next stage of the exercise”), wherein the image controller is configured to determine whether the image conversion condition is met by comparing a border of an object in a still image of the live video with a border of the object in the basic posture still image (para 42, “In order to ensure that the user's body shape and size are properly considered and evaluated during the AR process 400, the image superposing process 414 uses the above-described normalization process to compare the bounding box around the user pose's markers 204 to the bounding box around the target pose's markers 204. This comparison results in a factor that the system 100 must scale the user pose's markers 204 in order to match the target pose's markers 204.”).
Regarding claim 2, Lianides discloses the video recording system for compositing of claim 1, wherein the basic posture still image includes a plurality of still images including a standby posture still image, the start still image of the gesture, and the end still image of the gesture, and the image controller transmits one of the standby posture still image, the start still image of the gesture, and the end still image of the gesture, as a next basic posture still image of the basic posture still image transmitted to the first monitor, to the first monitor when the image conversion condition is met (para 33, “an image superposing process 414 whereby the user frontend application 118 (and optionally the provider frontend application 124) uses the pose rendering library 198 and the analyzed body motion frame data 157 to create and overlay a superposed skeleton image 206 onto the user body image 208 shown in the user live stream 166.”; also, para 47, “If the user is in the correct pose for a given number of frames consecutively (e.g., ≥5 frames), the user pose is considered matched to the target pose, and the reference image shifts to the next stage of the exercise”).
Regarding claim 3, Lianides discloses the video recording system for compositing of claim 1, further comprising: a user terminal configured for transmitting an image conversion request to the image controller, wherein the image controller is configured to determine that the image conversion condition is met when a still image of the live video of the user matches the basic posture still image, or an image conversion request is received from the user terminal, or a preset time elapses after transmitting the basic posture still image to the first monitor while recording the live video of the user (para 38, “The system 100 uses the video capturing device 106 and the user frontend application 118 to capture and track each video frame of the reference user doing an exercise correctly during the reference user live stream 166 in order to provide the captured body motion frame data 156. This data 156 is then analyzed by the pose detection model 196 to detect the reference user's markers 204 in real-time thereby creating the analyzed body motion frame data 157.”).
Regarding claim 4, Lianides discloses the video recording system for compositing of claim 1, wherein the image controller is configured to output a compositing criterion meeting notification when a still image of the live video of the user while recording the live video of the user meets a preset compositing criterion compared to the basic posture still image (para 42, “In order to ensure that the user's body shape and size are properly considered and evaluated during the AR process 400, the image superposing process 414 uses the above-described normalization process to compare the bounding box around the user pose's markers 204 to the bounding box around the target pose's markers 204. This comparison results in a factor that the system 100 must scale the user pose's markers 204 in order to match the target pose's markers 204.”).
Regarding claim 5, Lianides discloses the video recording system for compositing of claim 1, wherein the image controller is configured to output guidance on compositing criterion including at least one of a posture change portion for the still image of the live video of the user to match the basic posture still image, a description of the posture change portion, and an identification number of the posture change portion through the first monitor when a still image of the live video of the user while recording the live video of the user does not meet a preset compositing criterion compared to the basic posture still image (para 43, “During the motion tracking process 412 and the image superposing process 414, the AR process 400 further provides for a movement matching process 416 whereby the user frontend application 118 (and optionally the provider frontend application 124) also uses the pose matching algorithm to determine whether the corresponding target poses shown in the reference skeleton image 202 have been matched by the user poses shown in the superposed skeleton image 206”; also, para 46, “During the motion tracking process 412, the image superposing process 414, and the movement matching process 416, the AR process 400 further provides for a movement alerting process 418 whereby if the similarity score for a predetermined number of frames is under or within the target threshold, then the system 400 renders that certain markers 204 for specific body part(s) of the superposed skeleton image 206 a particular color 212 (e.g., green and shown in FIG. 5 as a solid line). Otherwise, the system 400 renders such markers 204 of the superposed skeleton image 206 a different color 214 (e.g., red and shown in FIG. 6 as a dashed line).”).
Regarding claim 10, Lianides discloses the video recording system for compositing of claim 1, further comprising: a recorder configured for receiving the user video transmitted from the recording apparatus and transmitting the user video to the image controller; and a control panel configured for receiving control information input by a user and transmitting the control information to the image controller (para 5, “user interfacing device further includes a user video capturing device, a user audio capturing device”; also, para 16, “The video stream sends and receives video data 126 between the user interface 114 and the provider interface 120, and the frontend applications (118, 124) render the video data 126 for the user and the provider to see. The audio stream sends and receives audio data 128 between the user interface 114 and the provider interface 120, and the frontend applications (118, 124) render the audio data 128 for the user and the provider to hear.”).
Regarding claim 12, Lianides discloses a video recording method for video (paragraph 1, line(s) 1-2 "The present invention relates generally to a system and a method") compositing, comprising: recording a user video using a recording apparatus (paragraph 5, line(s) 10-12 " user interfacing device further includes a user video capturing device, a user audio capturing device"); outputting a live video of a user and a basic posture still image displayed to be superimposed on the live video of the user through the first monitor on the basis of a user video transmitted from the recording apparatus (para 12, “FIG. 5 is diagram illustrating the user live video feed with the superposed skeleton image displayed in the user interface as shown in FIG. 3 when the user is doing an exercise correctly; and”; also, para 5, “creating a superposed skeleton image onto the user body image displayed on the user live stream using the user frontend application”; also, para 14, “an audio and video displaying device 110 (e.g., a computer monitor, a laptop or tablet's screen display, or the like)”); checking whether an image conversion condition is met while recording the live video of the user (para 43, “During the motion tracking process 412 and the image superposing process 414, the AR process 400 further provides for a movement matching process 416 whereby the user frontend application 118 (and optionally the provider frontend application 124) also uses the pose matching algorithm to determine whether the corresponding target poses shown in the reference skeleton image 202 have been matched by the user poses shown in the superposed skeleton image 206””); and changing the basic posture still image output through the first monitor when it is checked that the image conversion condition is met (para 47, “If the user is in the correct pose for a given number of frames consecutively (e.g., ≥5 frames), the user pose is considered matched to the target pose, and the reference image shifts to the next stage of the exercise”), wherein in the checking of whether the image conversion condition is met, it is determined whether the image conversion condition is met by comparing a border of an object in a still image of the live video with a border of the object in the basic posture still image (para 42, “In order to ensure that the user's body shape and size are properly considered and evaluated during the AR process 400, the image superposing process 414 uses the above-described normalization process to compare the bounding box around the user pose's markers 204 to the bounding box around the target pose's markers 204. This comparison results in a factor that the system 100 must scale the user pose's markers 204 in order to match the target pose's markers 204”).
Regarding claim 13, Lianides discloses the video recording method for compositing of claim 12, wherein the basic posture still image includes a plurality of still images including a standby posture still image, a start still image of a gesture, and an end still image of a gesture (Lianides: paragraph 33, line(s) 1-10 "an image superposing process 414 whereby the user frontend application 118 (and optionally the provider frontend application 124) uses the pose rendering library 198 and the analyzed body motion frame data 157 to create and overlay a superposed skeleton image 206 onto the user body image 208 shown in the user live stream 166. The image superposing process 414 allows the superposed skeleton image 206 to dynamically tracks and moves with the movements of the user's markers 204"), and in the changing of the basic posture still image, one of the standby posture still image, the start still image of the gesture, and the end still image of the gesture, as a next basic posture still image of the current basic posture still image is transmitted to the first monitor, to the first monitor (Lianides: paragraph 47, line(s) 1-4 "If the user is in the correct pose for a given number of frames consecutively (e.g., ≥5 frames), the user pose is considered matched to the target pose, and the reference image shifts to the next stage of the exercise").
Regarding claim 14, Lianides discloses the video recording method for compositing of claim 12, wherein, in the checking of whether the image conversion condition is met, it is determined that the image conversion condition is met when a still image of the live video of the user matches the basic posture still image, or an image conversion request is received from the user terminal, or a preset time elapses after transmitting the basic posture still image to the first monitor while recording the live video of the user (Lianides: paragraph 38, line(s) 5-19 "The system 100 uses the video capturing device 106 and the user frontend application 118 to capture and track each video frame of the reference user doing an exercise correctly during the reference user live stream 166 in order to provide the captured body motion frame data 156. This data 156 is then analyzed by the pose detection model 196 to detect the reference user's markers 204 in real-time thereby creating the analyzed body motion frame data 157. This analyzed body motion frame data 157 includes an (X, Y) coordinate for each marker 204 and a confidence score 210 for each coordinate. The analyzed body motion frame data 157 is sent back to the user frontend application 118 where it is processed by the pose rendering library 198 to create the target poses shown in the reference skeleton image 202.").
Regarding claim 15, Lianides discloses the video recording method for compositing of claim 12, wherein, in the checking of whether the image conversion condition is met, it is checked whether a still image of the live video of the user while recording the live video of the user meets a preset compositing criterion compared to the basic posture still image (Lianides: paragraph 42, line(s) 1-9 “In order to ensure that the user's body shape and size are properly considered and evaluated during the AR process 400, the image superposing process 414 uses the above-described normalization process to compare the bounding box around the user pose's markers 204 to the bounding box around the target pose's markers 204. This comparison results in a factor that the system 100 must scale the user pose's markers 204 in order to match the target pose's markers 204.”), and when it is checked that the preset compositing criterion is met, a compositing criterion meeting notification is output before the changing of the basic posture still (Lianides: paragraph 47, line(s) 1-10 "If the user is in the correct pose for a given number of frames consecutively (e.g., ≥5 frames), the user pose is considered matched to the target pose, and the reference image shifts to the next stage of the exercise. If it is at the end position of a particular movement, the user is said to have completed a repetition, and the repetition count 174 discussed below is updated. If the user is not in the correct pose for the whole body, then need to show the user which portion of his body (i.e., specific individual body part) is in an incorrect pose/position."; also, Fig. 6; also, paragraph 13, line(s)1-4 "FIG. 6 is a diagram illustrating the user live video feed with the superposed skeleton image displayed in the user interface as shown in FIG. 3 when the user is doing an exercise incorrectly."; also, Fig. 5; also, paragraph 12, line(s) 1-4 "FIG. 5 is diagram illustrating the user live video feed with the superposed skeleton image displayed in the user interface as shown in FIG. 3 when the user is doing an exercise correctly; and").
Regarding claim 16, Lianides discloses the video recording method for compositing of claim 12, wherein, in the checking of whether the image conversion condition is met, it is checked whether a still image of the live video of the user while recording the live video of the user meets a preset compositing criterion compared to the basic posture still image, and when it is checked that the preset compositing criterion is not met, in the outputting of the basic posture still image through the first monitor, guidance on compositing criterion including at least one of a posture change portion for the still image of the live video of the user to match the basic posture still image, a description of the posture change portion, and an identification number of the posture change portion is output through the first monitor (Lianides: paragraph 43, line(s) 1-9 "During the motion tracking process 412 and the image superposing process 414, the AR process 400 further provides for a movement matching process 416 whereby the user frontend application 118 (and optionally the provider frontend application 124) also uses the pose matching algorithm to determine whether the corresponding target poses shown in the reference skeleton image 202 have been matched by the user poses shown in the superposed skeleton image 206; also, paragraph 46, line(s) 1-22 "During the motion tracking process 412, the image superposing process 414, and the movement matching process 416, the AR process 400 further provides for a movement alerting process 418 whereby if the similarity score for a predetermined number of frames is under or within the target threshold, then the system 400 renders that certain markers 204 for specific body part(s) of the superposed skeleton image 206 a particular color 212 (e.g., green and shown in FIG. 5 as a solid line). Otherwise, the system 400 renders such markers 204 of the superposed skeleton image 206 a different color 214 (e.g., red and shown in FIG. 6 as a dashed line). For example, in one exemplary embodiment, in order to get color 212, the user pose shown in the superposed skeleton image 206 must meet the match target threshold of having the similarity score to be less than 0.07 and having such “correct” pose held for at least 5 frames. The system 100 further optionally allows the provider to adjust the requirement/strictness of the target threshold by setting the cosine similarity to be a specific level (e.g., <0.07 for strict, <0.08 for medium, <0.09 for lenient) and/or the duration of the “correct” pose (e.g., >5 frames, >10 frames, >30 frames, etc.)"; also, paragraph 48, line(s) 1-5 "During the movement alerting process 418, the system 100 using the user frontend application 118 optionally counts and displays on the interfaces (114, 120) the number of repetitions of the exercise completed by the user matching the target pose").
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) 6-9, 11, and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lianides et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0105389) in view of Olshansky (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0019806).
Regarding claim 6, Lianides discloses the video recording system for compositing of claim 1, wherein the recording apparatus includes a plurality of recording apparatuses located in different areas to record videos from different angles for the user.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Olshansky discloses a plurality of recording apparatuses located in different areas to record videos from different angles for the user (paragraph 44, line(s) 2-4 "a first camera 122, a second camera 124, and a third camera 126. Each of the cameras 120 is capable of recording video of the individual 110 from different angles.").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lianides's invention of the video recording system for video compositing with the features of Olshansky's invention of a plurality of recording apparatuses located in different areas to record videos from different angles for the user. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination for the following reasons. First, Olshansky teaches "a first camera 122, a second camera 124, and a third camera 126," each "capable of recording video of the individual 110 from different angles," which supplies the user-recording subject of Lianides with coverage from more than one vantage point. Second, Lianides captures the user with a single user video capturing device and therefore provides only one viewing angle of the user, leaving the system unable to record the user from multiple angles. Third, adding Olshansky's plurality of cameras in different areas to Lianides's recording apparatus resolves that limitation by recording the same user from several angles, which is the recited plurality of recording apparatuses located in different areas to record videos from different angles for the user.
Regarding claim 7, Lianides as modified by Olshansky discloses the video recording system for compositing of claim 6, . Lianides does not explicitly disclose wherein the image controller is configured to manage a plurality of user videos transmitted from the plurality of recording apparatuses by dividing the plurality of user videos into one of a gesture unit and a preset length unit and matching each of the plurality of user videos with at least one of video identification information and recording apparatus's identification information.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Olshansky discloses wherein the image controller is configured to manage a plurality of user videos transmitted from the plurality of recording apparatuses by dividing the plurality of user videos into one of a gesture unit and a preset length unit and matching each of the plurality of user videos with at least one of video identification information and recording apparatus's identification information (paragraph 68, line(s) 1-12 "The video computer 430 is similarly responsible for the control and receipt of video data from cameras 120. The video computer 430 is preferably specially configured to handle video processing in an efficient manner. In one embodiment, the video computer 430 contains a high-powered graphics processing unit (or GPU) that will speed up its handling of the multiple video feeds coming from the multiple cameras 120. The GPU can be responsible, for instance, for all video encoding and decoding required by the booth 400. The video information received from the cameras 120 are stored on the video computer as video data 432."; also, paragraph 103, line(s) 9-13 "Similarly, camera one data 1010 is divided into four video segments 1012, 1014, 1016, 1018 in FIG. 10, while camera two data 1020 is divided into segments 1022, 1024, 1026, 1028 and camera three data 1030 is divided into segments 1032, 1034, 1036, and 1038").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lianides's invention of the video recording system for video compositing with the features of Olshansky's invention of managing a plurality of user videos by dividing the videos into segments and associating each with camera identification. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination for the following reasons. First, Olshansky teaches that "camera one data 1010 is divided into four video segments 1012, 1014, 1016, 1018 in FIG. 10, while camera two data 1020 is divided into segments 1022, 1024, 1026, 1028 and camera three data 1030 is divided into segments 1032, 1034, 1036, and 1038," which divides each camera's video into discrete units and keeps each unit associated with its source camera. Second, once Lianides records the user from the several cameras supplied by Olshansky, Lianides provides no mechanism for organizing those multiple user videos into units or for keeping track of which camera produced which video. Third, applying Olshansky's segmentation and per-camera storage to Lianides's image controller resolves that gap by dividing the user videos into units and matching each with recording apparatus identification information, which is the recited management of a plurality of user videos.
Regarding claim 8, Lianides as modified by Olshansky discloses the video recording system for compositing of claim 7, wherein the plurality of user videos includes videos from different angles, and the image controller is configured to group the plurality of user videos including the videos from different angles into videos of the same angle, or configured to group all of a plurality of user videos recorded at the same time and manage grouped videos separately.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Olshansky discloses group the plurality of user videos including the videos from different angles into videos of the same angle, or configured to group all of a plurality of user videos recorded at the same time and manage grouped videos separately.(Olshansky: paragraph 103, line(s) 9-13 "Similarly, camera one data 1010 is divided into four video segments 1012, 1014, 1016, 1018 in FIG. 10, while camera two data 1020 is divided into segments 1022, 1024, 1026, 1028 and camera three data 1030 is divided into segments 1032, 1034, 1036, and 1038"; also, para 108, “While this may have originally been only a single time segment 810, the process of subdividing the time segments 810 (such as by searching for switching events as described above) may have split this into multiple segments 810. These multiple segments can be grouped together by the controller computer 410”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lianides's invention of the video recording system for video compositing with the features of Olshansky's invention of grouping the user videos by camera angle or by recording time and managing the grouped videos separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination for the following reasons. First, Olshansky teaches that segments derived from the same source "can be grouped together by the controller computer 410," which is a mechanism for collecting related video into managed groups. Second, Lianides, even once recording the user from multiple cameras, provides no way to organize the resulting multiple-angle videos into same-angle groups or into time-aligned groups. Third, applying Olshansky's grouping of segments to Lianides's image controller resolves that gap by grouping the user videos from different angles into videos of the same angle, or grouping all videos recorded at the same time, and managing the grouped videos separately, which is the recited grouping limitation.
Regarding claim 9, Lianides discloses the video recording system for compositing of claim 1, further comprising: second monitor located outside a recording booth and configured for receiving and outputting the same information as the output information of the first monitor transmitted from the image controller.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Olshansky discloses a second monitor located outside a recording booth and configured for receiving and outputting the same information as the output information of the first monitor transmitted from the image controller (para 42, “possible for the computers 10 to be located outside the booth 100”; also, para 49, “The kiosk 100 also includes one or more user interfaces 150. User interface 150 is shown as a display screen that can display content and images to the individual 110”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lianides's invention of the video recording system for video compositing with the features of Olshansky's invention of a display located outside a recording booth. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination for the following reasons. First, Olshansky teaches that it is "possible for the computers 10 to be located outside the booth 100" and that "User interface 150 is shown as a display screen that can display content and images to the individual 110," which establishes a display that presents the recorded content and that can be positioned outside the booth. Second, Lianides displays the live video and superposed image only on the single user-facing display and provides no second display outside an enclosure for an attendant or observer. Third, adding Olshansky's externally located display to Lianides and mirroring the first monitor's output to it resolves that gap, which is the recited second monitor located outside a recording booth and outputting the same information as the first monitor.
Regarding claim 11, Lianides discloses the video recording system for compositing of claim 1, first monitor is located inside the recording booth.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Olshansky discloses wherein the first monitor is located inside the recording booth (para 59, “the booth 100 can include a primary or centered user interface 252 that is substantially centered relative to a chair or stool 112 within the booth 100”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lianides's invention of the video recording system for video compositing with the features of Olshansky's invention of a display screen located within a booth. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination for the following reasons. First, Olshansky teaches that "User interface 150 is shown as a display screen that can display content and images to the individual 110," and that "the booth 100 can include a primary or centered user interface 252 that is substantially centered relative to a chair or stool 112 within the booth 100," which expressly locates a user-facing display within the booth and centered on the seat where the individual is recorded. Second, Lianides does not specify any booth or enclosure for the user-facing display and therefore does not locate the first monitor inside a recording booth. Third, housing Lianides's first monitor within Olshansky's booth, centered on the position of the user being recorded, resolves that gap by locating the first monitor inside the recording booth, which is the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 17, Lianides discloses the video recording method for compositing of claim 12, recording apparatus includes a plurality of recording apparatuses located in different areas to record videos from different angles for the user and the video recording method for compositing further comprises managing a plurality of user videos transmitted from the plurality of recording apparatuses by dividing the plurality of user videos into one of a gesture unit and a preset length unit and matching each of the plurality of user videos with at least one of video identification information and recording apparatus's identification information.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Olshansky discloses wherein the recording apparatus includes a plurality of recording apparatuses located in different areas to record videos from different angles for the user (para 44, “a first camera 122, a second camera 124, and a third camera 126. Each of the cameras 120 is capable of recording video of the individual 110 from different angles.”) and the video recording method for compositing further comprises managing a plurality of user videos transmitted from the plurality of recording apparatuses by dividing the plurality of user videos into one of a gesture unit and a preset length unit and matching each of the plurality of user videos with at least one of video identification information and recording apparatus's identification information (para 68, “The video computer 430 is similarly responsible for the control and receipt of video data from cameras 120. The video computer 430 is preferably specially configured to handle video processing in an efficient manner. In one embodiment, the video computer 430 contains a high-powered graphics processing unit (or GPU) that will speed up its handling of the multiple video feeds coming from the multiple cameras 120.”; also, para 103, “Similarly, camera one data 1010 is divided into four video segments 1012, 1014, 1016, 1018 in FIG. 10, while camera two data 1020 is divided into segments 1022, 1024, 1026, 1028 and camera three data 1030 is divided into segments 1032, 1034, 1036, and 1038”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lianides's invention of the video recording method for compositing with the features of Olshansky's invention of recording the user with a plurality of cameras at different angles and managing the resulting videos by segmenting them and associating each with camera identification. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination for the following reasons. First, Olshansky teaches "a first camera 122, a second camera 124, and a third camera 126," each "capable of recording video of the individual 110 from different angles," and that each camera's data "is divided into" discrete segments stored per camera, which supplies both multi-angle recording and per-camera segmentation. Second, Lianides records the user from a single user video capturing device and provides no mechanism for organizing multiple user videos or tracking which camera produced each one. Third, applying Olshansky's multi-camera recording and per-camera segmentation to Lianides's method resolves both gaps by recording the user from different angles and managing the user videos by dividing them into units matched with recording apparatus identification information, which is the recited method.
Regarding claim 18, Lianides as modified by Olshansky discloses the video recording method for compositing of claim 17, plurality of user videos includes videos from different angles, and in the managing, the plurality of user videos including the videos from different angles are grouped into videos of the same angle, or all of a plurality of user videos recorded at the same time are grouped, and grouped videos are managed separately.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Olshansky discloses wherein the plurality of user videos includes videos from different angles, and in the managing, the plurality of user videos including the videos from different angles are grouped into videos of the same angle, or all of a plurality of user videos recorded at the same time are grouped, and grouped videos are managed separately (para 103, “Similarly, camera one data 1010 is divided into four video segments 1012, 1014, 1016, 1018 in FIG. 10, while camera two data 1020 is divided into segments 1022, 1024, 1026, 1028 and camera three data 1030 is divided into segments 1032, 1034, 1036, and 1038”; also, para 108, “While this may have originally been only a single time segment 810, the process of subdividing the time segments 810 (such as by searching for switching events as described above) may have split this into multiple segments 810. These multiple segments can be grouped together by the controller computer 410”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lianides's invention of the video recording method for compositing with the features of Olshansky's invention of grouping the user videos by camera angle or recording time and managing the grouped videos separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination for the following reasons. First, Olshansky teaches that segments "can be grouped together by the controller computer 410," providing a mechanism for collecting related video into managed groups. Second, Lianides provides no way to organize multiple-angle user videos into same-angle groups or time-aligned groups. Third, applying Olshansky's grouping to Lianides's method resolves that gap by grouping the videos from different angles into videos of the same angle, or grouping all videos recorded at the same time, and managing the grouped videos separately, which is the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 19, Lianides discloses the video recording method for compositing of claim 12, wherein first monitor is located inside a recording booth, and in the outputting of the live video of the user and the basic posture still image through the first monitor, the same information as the output information of the first monitor is output through a second monitor located outside the recording booth.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Olshansky discloses wherein the first monitor is located inside a recording booth (para 49, “User interface 150 is shown as a display screen that can display content and images to the individual 110”; also, para 59, “the booth 100 can include a primary or centered user interface 252 that is substantially centered relative to a chair or stool 112 within the booth 100”), and in the outputting of the live video of the user and the basic posture still image through the first monitor, the same information as the output information of the first monitor is output through a second monitor located outside the recording booth (para 42, “possible for the computers 10 to be located outside the booth 100”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lianides's invention of the video recording method for compositing with the features of Olshansky's invention of a display screen located inside a booth and a display located outside the booth. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination for the following reasons. First, Olshansky teaches that "the booth 100 can include a primary or centered user interface 252 that is substantially centered relative to a chair or stool 112 within the booth 100," locating a user-facing display inside the booth, and also teaches that it is "possible for the computers 10 to be located outside the booth 100," establishing components both inside and outside the enclosure. Second, Lianides does not specify a booth and provides no second display outside an enclosure that mirrors the user-facing display. Third, housing Lianides's first monitor within Olshansky's booth and mirroring its output to a display outside the booth resolves both gaps by locating the first monitor inside a recording booth and outputting the same information through a second monitor located outside the recording booth, which is the recited method.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 19, 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues at pages 11-12 of the Remarks that Lianides fails to disclose the limitation added to independent claims 1 and 12, namely determining whether the image conversion condition is met "by comparing a border of an object in a still image of the live video with a border of the object in the basic posture still image." Applicant contends that the superposed skeleton image of Lianides is a dynamically moving graphic rather than a still template, that Lianides determines pose matching using markers, coordinates, and similarity scores rather than an object border, and that the bounding box of Lianides paragraph [0042] is an abstract mathematical construct around skeletal markers rather than a border of an object as it appears in image data. These arguments are not persuasive.
First, the argument reads limitations into the claim that the claim does not recite. The claim recites only "a border of an object." It does not recite a comparison at the "image level," at the "pixel level," of the "actual contour or outline," or of the object "as it appears in image data." It is improper to import these limitations from the specification into the claim. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a bounding box that bounds a detected object is a border of that object.
Second, Lianides expressly discloses comparing borders of objects. Lianides states that "the image superposing process 414 uses the above-described normalization process to compare the bounding box around the user pose's markers 204 to the bounding box around the target pose's markers 204." A bounding box is a border. The user pose is an object appearing in a still image of the live video, and the target pose is the object appearing in the basic posture still image. Comparing the bounding box around the user pose to the bounding box around the target pose therefore reads on comparing a border of an object in a still image of the live video with a border of the object in the basic posture still image.
Third, the markers from which the bounding box is constructed are detected directly from the captured image. Lianides discloses that the system "to capture and track each video frame" of the user is "then analyzed by the pose detection model 196 to detect the reference user's markers 204 in real-time." The bounding box is therefore derived from the object as captured in the image and is not divorced from the image data as Applicant contends.
Fourth, the contention that the basic posture still image must be distinguished from Lianides' reference skeleton image because the latter is "dynamically moving" is not commensurate with the claim. The claim does not exclude the basic posture still image from being one of a sequence of still images. Lianides discloses that the reference skeleton image holds a fixed target pose and "shifts to the next stage of the exercise" only upon a discrete match condition being satisfied for a number of consecutive frames. A reference image that presents a fixed target pose until a discrete advancement is a still image under the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Fifth, the Examiner notes that in the prior Office action this same paragraph [0042] bounding-box comparison was relied upon to map the "preset compositing criterion compared to the basic posture still image" recited in claim 4, and Applicant did not traverse that mapping. The limitation now added to independent claims 1 and 12 recites the same border comparison and is disclosed by Lianides for the same reason.
With respect to claims 2, 4, 5, 13, 15, and 16, Applicant argues at page 13 of the Remarks that Lianides' movement-alerting and exercise-correction process is directed to physical therapy rather than to compositing continuity. This argument is not persuasive. The recited "compositing" purpose is a statement of intended use that does not structurally distinguish the claimed apparatus or method steps from Lianides, which performs the same image comparison and outputs the same posture-change guidance. A recitation of intended use does not patentably distinguish where the prior art is capable of performing the recited function.
For the foregoing reasons, the amendment does not distinguish the claimed subject matter over Lianides, and the rejection of claims 1-5, 10, and 12-16 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) is maintained.
Applicant argues at pages 13-14 of the Remarks that Olshansky does not cure the asserted deficiency of Lianides as to the border-comparison limitation. This argument is not persuasive because, as set forth above, Lianides is not deficient as to that limitation; the limitation is disclosed by Lianides. Olshansky is relied upon only for the additional features recited in the dependent claims, namely a plurality of recording apparatuses recording from different angles, the dividing and grouping of the resulting user videos, and the arrangement of displays inside and outside the recording booth. Applicant has not separately traversed the mapping of Olshansky to those features. The rejection of claims 6-9, 11, and 17-19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Jai Li whose telephone number is (571)272-1170. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu between 06:00-16:00 EST.
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, Xiao Wu can be reached at (571)272-7761. 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.
/JAI W LI/Junior Examiner, Art Unit 2613
/XIAO M WU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2613
Prosecution Insights