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
In the response filed on 17 March 2026, claims 1-13 have been withdrawn.
Now claims 14-20 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 14-20 in the reply filed on 17 March 2026 is acknowledged.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 14-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 16 and 24 of U.S. Patent No. 12,260,010. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the instant application and the ‘010 patent are directed toward a client device for providing an avatar overlay of personalized body part movement pathway.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 14 recites, and its dependent claims incorporate, the limitation "the one or more processors and the user set, the memory" in lines 10-11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites a system, for performing the limitations of:
worn by a human user and to generate and [… provide …] relative body part dynamic positional information describing a dynamic kinesiologic action of the user's body; […]: a. access a video segment and […] to dynamically [… output …] a user avatar derived from and dynamically responsive to kinesiologic relative body element positional information generated by and [… obtained …]; b. [… provide …] a sequence of data frames from a data stream program, the data stream program, the data stream program presenting at least one personalized body parts movement pathway ("the pathway") indicating at least one recommended kinesiologic path of at least two anatomical elements of the user, wherein the sequence of data frames provides kinesiologic and positioning information of a modeling avatar for [… output …], the modeling avatar adapted to dynamically present to the user […] aspects of the at least one personalized movement pathway; and c. [… display …] an interactive dynamic [… output …] of the modeling avatar over the user avatar […], the interactive [… output provided …] in association with a plurality of dynamically updated kinesiologic body part positional information [… obtained …], wherein the dynamically updated kinesiologic body part positional information generated by the user […] is derived from the plurality of dynamically kinesiologic body part positional information generated by [… obtained …] and integrated into the user avatar […].
, as drafted, is a system which, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a method of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions) via human interaction with generic computer components. That is, by a human user interacting with “an augmented reality user set ("the user set"), the user set comprising a headset and an additional positional feedback device, the positional feedback device comprising a plurality of body element positional sensors ("the plurality of sensors") communicatively coupled with the headset” and “one or more processors bi-directionally communicatively coupled by a communications module… and a memory”, the claimed invention amounts to managing personal behavior or interaction between people, the Examiner notes as stated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), “certain activity between a person and a computer… may fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping”. For example, by a human user interacting with “an augmented reality user set ("the user set"), the user set comprising a headset and an additional positional feedback device, the positional feedback device comprising a plurality of body element positional sensors ("the plurality of sensors") communicatively coupled with the headset” and “one or more processors bi-directionally communicatively coupled by a communications module… and a memory”, the claim encompasses a human user wearing a generic computer device to interact with data to organize how they move their body in performance of a various pathways (i.e., exercises). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of “an augmented reality user set ("the user set"), the user set comprising a headset and an additional positional feedback device, the positional feedback device comprising a plurality of body element positional sensors ("the plurality of sensors") communicatively coupled with the headset” and “one or more processors bi-directionally communicatively coupled by a communications module… and a memory” which implements the identified abstract idea. The “an augmented reality user set ("the user set"), the user set comprising a headset and an additional positional feedback device, the positional feedback device comprising a plurality of body element positional sensors ("the plurality of sensors") communicatively coupled with the headset” and “one or more processors bi-directionally communicatively coupled by a communications module… and a memory” are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., general purpose computers with processors and memory, performing/ implementing generic computer functions see applicant’s specification Figs. 1-3, paragraphs [0081]-[0088]), such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim recites the additional elements of “transmit… received…” and “visually render… display an interactive dynamic overlay…”. The “transmit… received…” steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a general means of receiving/transmitting data) and amounts to the mere transmission and/or receipt of data, which is a form of extra-solution activity. The “visually render… display an interactive dynamic overlay…” is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., use of a generic display to present and interact with data) and amounts to merely linking of the abstract idea to particular technological environment. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “an augmented reality user set ("the user set"), the user set comprising a headset and an additional positional feedback device, the positional feedback device comprising a plurality of body element positional sensors ("the plurality of sensors") communicatively coupled with the headset” and “one or more processors bi-directionally communicatively coupled by a communications module… and a memory”, to perform the noted steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic hardware components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic hardware component cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”).
Also, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “transmit… received…” and “visually render… display an interactive dynamic overlay…” were considered extra-solution activity and/or generally linking the abstract idea to particular technological environment. The “transmit… received…” steps have been re-evaluated under the "significantly more" analysis and determined to amount to be well-understood, routine, and conventional elements/functions. As described in MPEP 2106.0S(d)(II)(i) "Receiving or transmitting data over a network" is well-understood, routine, and conventional. The “visually render… display an interactive dynamic overlay…” has been re-evaluated under the “significantly more” analysis and determined to amount to be well-understood, routine, and conventional elements/functions. As described in Vissa (20200038709): paragraph [0055]; Clavin (20130252216): paragraph [0018]; Kallmann (20140287389); Lee (11615648): Col. 5, lines 5-15: paragraph [0039]; displaying overlays for a human user is well-understood, routine and conventional. Well-understood, routine, and conventional elements/functions cannot provide “significantly more.” As such the claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 15-20 are similarly rejected because either further define the abstract idea and/or do not further limit the claim to a practical application or provide as inventive concept such that the claims are subject matter eligible.
Claims 15-17 further describe the video segment (i.e., labels of the data used), however does not recite any additional elements, therefore the claim cannot provide significantly more and/or a practical application.
Claims 18-20 describe that a human user uses the device (i.e., human activity), however does not recite any additional elements, therefore the claim cannot provide significantly more and/or a practical application.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2020/0038709 (hereafter “Vissa”), in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2013/0252216 (hereafter “Clavin”).
Regarding (Original) claim 14, Vissa teaches a client device (Vissa: Figs. 1-5, paragraph [0039], “The example device 500 can be implemented as any of the devices described with reference to the previous FIGS. 1-4, such as any type of mobile device, mobile phone, client device, wearable device, tablet, computing, communication, entertainment, gaming, media playback, and/or other type of electronic device”, Claim 10, “A system for real-time augmented reality (AR) activity feedback”) comprising:
an augmented reality user set ("the user set"), the user set comprising a headset and an additional positional feedback device, the positional feedback device comprising a plurality of body element positional sensors ("the plurality of sensors") communicatively coupled with the headset, wherein the user set is configured to be worn by a human user and to generate and transmit relative body part dynamic positional information describing a dynamic kinesiologic action of the user's body (Vissa: Fig. 1, paragraphs [0008]-[0009], “a system of multiple wearable sensors can record the musculoskeletal and cardiovascular state of the person while performing the activity, and sensor data from the multiple wearable sensors can be communicatively linked to a sensor device hub… the wearable sensors may be equipped with RFID tags”, paragraph [0015]-[0017], “The example environment 100 includes a person 102 with multiple wearable sensors while performing an activity, in this example jogging. The wearable sensors may be implemented as, but are not limited to, any kind of musculoskeletal sensors (e.g., an arm sensor 104, a wrist-located sensor 106, and a leg sensor 108), as well as cardiovascular sensors (e.g., a cardio sensor 110) intended to acquire data related to the activity of the person. For example, the wearable sensors acquire the data related to muscle activity, skeletal position and alignment, body movement and pressure, heart rate, oxygen intake, and any other sensor data related to the body position and condition of the person in real-time… as augmented reality (AR) glasses 128 that may be worn by a person”, paragraphs [0023]-[0024], “communicate with via a communication network… the mobile device 202 may be implemented as the sensor device hub, with visual feedback provided by a pair of augmented reality (AR) glasses 128 such as those shown in FIG. 1”);
one or more processors bi-directionally communicatively coupled by a communications module with the user set; and a memory bi-directionally communicatively coupled by the communications module with the one or more processors and the user set, the memory storing software executable instructions executing on the client device, the software executable instructions when executed by the one or more processors (Vissa: Figs. 1-5, paragraph [0008], “sensor data from the multiple wearable sensors can be communicatively linked to a sensor device hub”, paragraph [0018], “a software application, such as computer-executable software instructions that are executable with a processor or processing system 132 of the sensor device hub.”, paragraph [0040]-[0042], “The device 500 includes communication transceivers 502 that enable wired and/or wireless communication of device data 504 with other devices. The device data 504 can include any of the sensor data and information, real-time comparison feedback of activity performance, representative forms of performing an activity, audio data, and location tracking data… a processing system 508 of one or more processors (e.g., any of microprocessors, controllers, and the like) and/or a processor and memory system”) cause the client device to:
a. access a video segment and direct the client system to dynamically visually render a user avatar derived from and dynamically responsive to kinesiologic relative body element positional information generated by and received from the plurality of sensors (Vissa: paragraphs [0010]-[0012], “an avatar representing the person performing the activity may be provided as visual feedback… the AR glasses 128 display an avatar 146… such that the user can see the avatar 146 overplayed on the real environment”, paragraph [0028], “determine the muscle activity, skeletal position and alignment, body movement, pressure on surfaces of the body or joints of the person”, paragraph [0040], “The device data 504 can include any of the sensor data and information, real-time comparison feedback of activity performance, representative forms of performing an activity, audio data, and location tracking data. Additionally, the device data 504 can include any type of audio, video, and/or image data”, paragraph [0046]-[0048], “The example device 500 also includes a camera 522 and motion sensors 524. The motion sensors 524 can be implemented with various sensors, such as a gyroscope, an accelerometer, and/or other types of motion sensors to sense motion of the device… The audio system and/or the display system may include any devices that process, display, and/or otherwise render audio, video, display, and/or image data”, paragraphs [0053]-[0055], “displaying a first avatar that represents the person performing the session of the activity… a pair of glasses equipped with an augmented reality (AR) screen to display an overlay of an avatar that represents the person performing the activity in a real environment in which the person is performing the activity”);
b. transmit to the headset a sequence of data frames from a data stream program, the data stream program, the data stream program presenting at least one personalized body parts movement pathway ("the pathway") indicating at least one recommended kinesiologic path of at least two anatomical elements of the user, wherein the sequence of data frames provides kinesiologic and positioning information of a modeling avatar for rendering by the headset, the modeling avatar adapted to dynamically present to the user via the headset aspects of the at least one personalized movement pathway (Vissa: Figs. 1-5, paragraph [0009], “perform an activity, such as a type of exercise or physical therapy”, paragraphs [0019]-[0021], “comparing the form of the person performing the activity (e.g., exercising) to a representative form 140 of the activity (e.g., exercise) being performed, and then providing an indication of how the form of the person exercising compares to the representative form… the AR glasses 128 display an avatar 146 of the representative form for performing the activity on lenses 148 of the glasses such that the user can see the avatar 146 overplayed on the real environment… avatar 146 may represent the previous best performance of the person on the route depicted by the AR path 154, allowing the person to try and beat their previous best performance”, paragraphs [0023]-[0025], “provide a real-time comparison feedback 208 of activity performances… A comparison of the form of the person performing the activity to a representative form 212 of the activity being performed is determined, and the real-time comparison feedback 208 is generated as an indication of how the form of the person performing the activity compares to the representative form 212”. The Examiner notes as seen in at least Figure 1, the representative form that is a user’s personal previous best performance of an exercise (i.e., a personalized movement pathway) is provided for rendering by the headset by an avatar and teaches what is required of the claim under the broadest reasonable interpretation); and
c. display an interactive dynamic […] modeling avatar [… with …] the user avatar by the headset, the interactive […] displayed in association with a plurality of dynamically updated kinesiologic body part positional information received by the headset from the plurality of sensors, wherein the dynamically updated kinesiologic body part positional information generated by the user set is derived from the plurality of dynamically kinesiologic body part positional information generated by the plurality of sensors of the positional feedback device and received and integrated into the user avatar by the one or more processors (Vissa: Figs. 1-5, paragraph [0012], “an avatar can be displayed that represents the person performing the push-up and/or an avatar is displayed of push-ups being performed correctly for comparison”, paragraph [0025], “two avatars may be shown as the visual feedback 218, with one avatar representing the person performing the activity and the second avatar being the representation of the representative form 212 of the activity being performed”, paragraph [0028], “determine the muscle activity, skeletal position and alignment, body movement, pressure on surfaces of the body or joints of the person”, paragraph [0038], “the visual feedback may include two avatars of the person engaging in the activity for comparison, with one avatar representing the person engaging in the first session of the activity and a second avatar representing the person engaging in the second session of the activity”, paragraph [0055], “The sensor device hub is a pair of glasses equipped with an augmented reality (AR) screen to display an overlay of an avatar that represents the person performing the activity in a real environment in which the person is performing the activity”).
Vissa may not explicitly teach (Underlined below for clarity):
b. transmit to the headset a sequence of data frames from a data stream program, the data stream program, the data stream program presenting at least one personalized body parts movement pathway ("the pathway") indicating at least one recommended kinesiologic path of at least two anatomical elements of the user, wherein the sequence of data frames provides kinesiologic and positioning information of a modeling avatar for rendering by the headset, the modeling avatar adapted to dynamically present to the user via the headset aspects of the at least one personalized movement pathway; and c. display an interactive dynamic overlay of the modeling avatar over the user avatar by the headset, the interactive overlay displayed in association with a plurality of dynamically updated kinesiologic body part positional information received by the headset from the plurality of sensors, wherein the dynamically updated kinesiologic body part positional information generated by the user set is derived from the plurality of dynamically kinesiologic body part positional information generated by the plurality of sensors of the positional feedback device and received and integrated into the user avatar by the one or more processors.
Clavin teaches b. transmit to the headset a sequence of data frames from a data stream program, the data stream program, the data stream program presenting at least one personalized body parts movement pathway ("the pathway") indicating at least one recommended kinesiologic path of at least two anatomical elements of the user, wherein the sequence of data frames provides kinesiologic and positioning information of a modeling avatar for rendering by the headset, the modeling avatar adapted to dynamically present to the user via the headset aspects of the at least one personalized movement pathway; and c. display an interactive dynamic overlay of the modeling avatar over the user avatar by the headset, the interactive overlay displayed in association with a plurality of dynamically updated kinesiologic body part positional information received by the headset from the plurality of sensors, wherein the dynamically updated kinesiologic body part positional information generated by the user set is derived from the plurality of dynamically kinesiologic body part positional information generated by the plurality of sensors of the positional feedback device and received and integrated into the user avatar by the one or more processors (Clavin: Figs. 1-6, paragraphs [0018]-[0021], “feedback 114 may further comprise one or more visual features (e.g., an overlay on, or next to, avatar 112) depicting a performance goal (e.g., desired degree of rotation) and/or a representation of previous user performance (e.g., previous degree of rotation)… feedback 114 may comprise a "ghost image" (e.g., image of increased opacity) of user 102 over avatar 112 while the user moves in tandem with the avatar.”, paragraph [0023], “define custom exercise modules”, paragraph [0034], “exercise module may comprise any suitable data relating to the exercise, including but not limited to a virtual representation of the corresponding exercise (e.g., recorded performance of exercise) and/or module-specific feedback (e.g., customized overlays and/or customized alert sounds)”, paragraph [0037], “an avatar (e.g., avatar 112 of FIG. 1) may be displayed that substantially follows the motion of the user… Such an avatar may provide visual feedback to alert the user of any deficiencies in their performance (e.g., lack of extension, poor posture). Such an avatar also may be displayed in a superimposed image with an avatar that demonstrates the exercise”, paragraph [0045], “new/customized exercises may be performed by the physical therapist for capture by imaging sensors (e.g., imaging sensors 124 of FIG. 1). The image data from said imaging sensors may then be utilized to programmatically generate an exercise module.”).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to overlay avatars as taught by Clavin within the AR environment for providing avatars during motion as taught by Vissa with the motivation of “alert the user of any deficiencies in their performance (e.g., lack of extension, poor posture)” (Clavin: paragraph [0037]).
Regarding claim 15, Vissa and Clavin teach the limitations of claim 14, and further teach wherein the video segment comprises a sequence of athletic movement images (Vissa: Figs. 1-5, paragraph [0011], “a person may be exercising in a gym and performing a particular activity, such as doing push-ups while wearing musculoskeletal and cardiovascular sensors”, paragraphs [0040]-[0041], “the device data 504 can include any type of audio, video, and/or image data… These data input ports may be used to couple the device to any type of components, peripherals, or accessories such as microphones and/or cameras”; Clavin: Figs. 1-6, paragraphs [0015]-[0018], “Imaging sensors 108 may be configured to provide image data (e.g., depth images, segmented images, and color images in some embodiments) to user client 106. In order to monitor the one or more exercises… recorded media content (e.g., image and/or video of previous exercise performance)”, paragraphs [0021]-[0023], “capture video images of exercises performed”. The Examiner notes video of an exercise is sequence of athletic movement images under the broadest reasonable interpretation).
The motivation to combine is the same as in claim 14, incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 16, Vissa and Clavin teach the limitations of claim 14, and further teach wherein the video segment comprises a sequence of human performance movement images (Vissa: Figs. 1-5, paragraph [0011], “a person may be exercising in a gym and performing a particular activity, such as doing push-ups while wearing musculoskeletal and cardiovascular sensors”, paragraphs [0040]-[0041], “the device data 504 can include any type of audio, video, and/or image data… These data input ports may be used to couple the device to any type of components, peripherals, or accessories such as microphones and/or cameras”; Clavin: Figs. 1-6, paragraphs [0015]-[0018], “Imaging sensors 108 may be configured to provide image data (e.g., depth images, segmented images, and color images in some embodiments) to user client 106. In order to monitor the one or more exercises… recorded media content (e.g., image and/or video of previous exercise performance)”, paragraphs [0021]-[0023], “capture video images of exercises performed”. The Examiner notes video of an exercise is sequence of human performance movement images under the broadest reasonable interpretation)..
The motivation to combine is the same as in claim 14, incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 17, Vissa and Clavin teach the limitations of claim 16, and further teach wherein the sequence of human performance movement images express a choreographed pattern of human movement (Vissa: Figs. 1-5, paragraph [0011], “a person may be exercising in a gym and performing a particular activity, such as doing push-ups while wearing musculoskeletal and cardiovascular sensors”, paragraphs [0040]-[0041], “the device data 504 can include any type of audio, video, and/or image data… These data input ports may be used to couple the device to any type of components, peripherals, or accessories such as microphones and/or cameras”; Clavin: Figs. 1-6, paragraphs [0015]-[0018], “Imaging sensors 108 may be configured to provide image data (e.g., depth images, segmented images, and color images in some embodiments) to user client 106. In order to monitor the one or more exercises… recorded media content (e.g., image and/or video of previous exercise performance)”, paragraphs [0021]-[0023], “capture video images of exercises performed”. The Examiner notes a pushup reads on a choreographed pattern of human movement under the broadest reasonable interpretation).
The motivation to combine is the same as in claim 14, incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 18, Vissa and Clavin teach the limitations of claim 14, and further teach wherein the client device is accessed by a human user for a health evaluation (Vissa: Figs. 1-5, paragraph [0010], “A real-time comparison feedback is initiated that indicates to the person performing the activity, how to improve or correct their form”, paragraph [0017], “The terms “person” and “user” are generally used herein interchangeably, where the person 102 with the mobile phone 126 is also the user of the mobile phone in the example environment 100”, paragraph [0024], “the activity comparison module 206 can initiate audible feedback 224 as instructions via the audio system 216 of the mobile device, indicating how the user can improve the form of performing the activity… the mobile device 202 being a mobile phone of a user”; Clavin: Figs. 1-6, paragraph [0008], “providing an interactive physical therapy experience via a network-based service accessible by a user client”, paragraph [0033], “providing an interactive physical therapy experience to a patient via a computing device, such as user client”. The Examiner notes that “for a health evaluation” is an intended use of the client device being accessed by a human user that is not required to occur. This feature has been fully considered by the Examiner; however, the limitation does not provide patentable distinction over the cited prior art because it is an intended use or result of the client device being accessed by a human user).
The motivation to combine is the same as in claim 14, incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 19, Vissa and Clavin teach the limitations of claim 14, and further teach wherein the client device is accessed by a human user for a movement training session (Vissa: Figs. 1-5, paragraph [0010], “A real-time comparison feedback is initiated that indicates to the person performing the activity, how to improve or correct their form”, paragraph [0017], “The terms “person” and “user” are generally used herein interchangeably, where the person 102 with the mobile phone 126 is also the user of the mobile phone in the example environment 100”, paragraph [0024], “the activity comparison module 206 can initiate audible feedback 224 as instructions via the audio system 216 of the mobile device, indicating how the user can improve the form of performing the activity… the mobile device 202 being a mobile phone of a user”; Clavin: Figs. 1-6, paragraph [0008], “providing an interactive physical therapy experience via a network-based service accessible by a user client”, paragraph [0033], “providing an interactive physical therapy experience to a patient via a computing device, such as user client”. The Examiner notes that “for a movement training session” is an intended use of the client device being accessed by a human user that is not required to occur. This feature has been fully considered by the Examiner; however, the limitation does not provide patentable distinction over the cited prior art because it is an intended use or result of the client device being accessed by a human user).
The motivation to combine is the same as in claim 14, incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 20, Vissa and Clavin teach the limitations of claim 14, and further teach wherein the client device is accessed by a human user for a performance training session (Vissa: Figs. 1-5, paragraph [0010], “A real-time comparison feedback is initiated that indicates to the person performing the activity, how to improve or correct their form”, paragraph [0017], “The terms “person” and “user” are generally used herein interchangeably, where the person 102 with the mobile phone 126 is also the user of the mobile phone in the example environment 100”, paragraph [0024], “the activity comparison module 206 can initiate audible feedback 224 as instructions via the audio system 216 of the mobile device, indicating how the user can improve the form of performing the activity… the mobile device 202 being a mobile phone of a user”; Clavin: Figs. 1-6, paragraph [0008], “providing an interactive physical therapy experience via a network-based service accessible by a user client”, paragraph [0033], “providing an interactive physical therapy experience to a patient via a computing device, such as user client”. The Examiner notes that “for a performance training session” is an intended use of the client device being accessed by a human user that is not required to occur. This feature has been fully considered by the Examiner; however, the limitation does not provide patentable distinction over the cited prior art because it is an intended use or result of the client device being accessed by a human user).
The motivation to combine is the same as in claim 14, incorporated herein.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent App. No. 20140287389 (hereafter “Kallmann”) teaches real-time adaptive rehabilitation for a user using avatar overlays.
U.S. Patent No. 11615648 (hereafter “Lee”) teaches avatars for feedback and coaching of a user performing a drill (i.e., a movement pathway).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrew E Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-8323. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-5:00 PM.
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, Shahid Merchant can be reached on 571-270-1360. 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.
/A.E.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3684
/Shahid Merchant/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3684
Prosecution Insights