DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. 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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. Non-Statutory (Directed to a Judicial Exception without an Inventive Concept/Significantly More)
35 U.S.C.101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
● Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
The current claims fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (MPEP 2106.03).
Step 2A [Wingdings font/0xE0] Prong One:
The claim(s) recite a judicial exception, namely an abstract idea, as shown below:
— Considering each of claims 1, 16 and 20 as the representative claim, the following claimed limitations recite an abstract idea:
identify that an exercise of a user based on designated motions is started
obtain second information on the designated motions,
obtain, based on a first threshold value related to the first information, a first value indicating a number of times the designated motions with respect to the second information were performed,
obtain, based on a second threshold value related to the first information, a second value indicating the number of times the designated motions with respect to the second information were performed, and
[present] the first value and the second value.
Thus, the limitations identified above recite an abstract idea since the limitations correspond to mental processes and/or certain methods of organizing human activity, which are part of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas identified according to the current eligibility standard (see MPEP 2106.04(a)). In particular, the limitations identified above can practically be performed in the human mind and/or using a pen and paper. For instance, a human—such as a therapist—can perform the limitations above as follows at least using a pen and paper:
the therapist identifies, based on his/her observation of the user’s actions, that the user has started an exercise based on designated motions (e.g., the therapist may use a chart/booklet that provides information about different types of exercises, including descriptions and/or values related to one or more attributes related to each of one or more exercises, etc.);
the therapist obtains (e.g., form the chart/booklet) second information on the designated motions;
the therapist obtains, based on a first threshold value related to the first information (e.g., a first threshold specified in the chart/booklet), a first value indicating a number of times the designated motions with respect to the second information were performed based on observing the user’s motions;
the therapist further obtains, based on a second threshold value related to the second information (e.g., a second threshold specified in the chart/booklet), a second value indicating the number of times the designated motions with respect to the second information were performed based on observing the user’s motions;
the therapist eventually shows —using a pen and paper—each of the above values—i.e., the first value and the second value—to the user.
The observation above confirms that the claims do recite an abstract idea; namely, a mental process (e.g., an observation, an evaluation, and/or a judgment process, etc.).
Step 2A [Wingdings font/0xE0] Prong Two:
The claims recite additional element(s), wherein a computer system that incorporates one or more components (e.g., a processor, a memory, a display, etc.) is utilized to facilitate the functions/steps with respect to: storing information (e.g., “storing first information on exercise movement”; identifying an attribute related to a user (e.g., “identify that an exercise of a user based on designated motions is started”); gather further information and analyze the gathered information (e.g., “obtain second information on the designated motions . . . obtain, based on a second threshold value related to the first information, a second value indicating the number of times the designated motions with respect to the second information were performed”); generate/provide one or more results based on the analysis (e.g., “display the first value and the second value on the display”), etc.
However, the claimed additional element(s) fail to integrate the abstract idea into a patent-eligible practical application since the additional element(s) are utilized merely as a tool to facilitate the abstract idea. Accordingly, when each of the claims is considered as a whole, the additional element(s) fail to impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. For instance, when each of the claims is considered as a whole, none of the claims provides an improvement over the relevant existing technology.
The observations above confirm that the claims are indeed directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
Accordingly, when the claim(s) is considered as a whole (i.e., considering all claim elements both individually and in combination), the claimed additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself (also see MPEP 2106). The claimed additional elements are directed to conventional computer elements, which are serving merely to perform conventional computer functions.
Accordingly, when each of the current claims is considered as a whole (e.g., see the discussion under Prong Two above regarding such consideration of the claim as a whole), none of the claims recites an element—or a combination of elements—directed to an inventive concept.
In addition, the utilization of the conventional computer/network technology to facilitate the process of collecting and analyzing data related to a user, including generating one or more results to the user based on the collection and analysis of one or more motions of the user, etc., is directed to a well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the art (e.g., US 2011/0003665; US 2018/0353810; US 2014/0135955, etc.).
The above observation confirms that the current claimed invention fails to amount to “significantly more” than an abstract idea.
It is worth noting that the above analysis already encompasses each of the current dependent claims (i.e., claims 2-15 and 17-19). Particularly, each of the dependent claims also fails to amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea since each dependent claim is directed to a further abstract idea, and/or a further conventional computer element(s) utilized to facilitate the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the findings above demonstrate that none of the claims implements an element—or a combination of elements—directed to an inventive concept (e.g., none of the current claims is reciting an element—or a combination of elements—that provides a technological improvement over the existing/conventional technology).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C.112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
● Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C.112(a) or 35 U.S.C.112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim 7 currently recites, “. . . based on identifying that the second threshold value is less than the first reference value, determine the second threshold value as the first reference value” (emphasis added).
However, per the specification, when the “second threshold value” is less than a reference value (reference value “901”), the “second threshold value” is determined as another reference value (reference value “902”) (see [0170]). In contrast, per claim 7, when the “second threshold value” is less than a reference value, the “second threshold value” is determined as that same reference value.
Thus, at least for the reason above, the specification lacks sufficient written description regarding claim 7.
Note that, when an amendment is filed in reply to an objection or rejection based on 35 U.S.C. 112(a), or first paragraph (pre-AIA ), a study of the entire application is often necessary to determine whether or not "new matter" is involved. Applicant should therefore specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure (see MPEP 2163.06).
5. 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 1-15 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites, “a first memory storing first information on exercise movement, comprising one or more storage media; a second memory storing instructions, comprising one or more storage media” (emphasis added).
However, it is unclear whether the claim is asserting (i) a first memory that comprises multiple storage media, and (ii) a second memory that comprises multiple storage media. In particular, a memory itself being a storage medium, it is unclear how it is assumed to comprise multiple storage media. Thus, claim 1-15 are ambiguous at least for the reason above.
Claim 11 recites, “wherein the exercise of the user is performed through a plurality of sets set based on repetitions of the designated motion . . .” (emphasis added).
However, it is unclear what is implied per the term, “a plurality of sets set based”, as recited above. Accordingly, claims 11-15 are further ambiguous at least for the reason above.
Applicant is further advised to evaluate each of the claims and make appropriate corrections if additional discrepancies are discovered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Note that the one or more citations (paragraphs or columns) presented in this office action regarding the teaching of a cited reference(s) are exemplary only. Accordingly, such citation(s) are not intended to limit/restrict the teaching of the reference(s) to the cited portion(s) only. Applicant is required to evaluate the entire disclosure of each reference; such as additional portions that teach or suggest the claimed limitations.
● Claims 1, 6, 11, 12, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over KIM 2018/0353810.
Regarding claim 1, KIM teaches the following claimed limitations: a wearable device comprising: a display; at least one sensor; a first memory storing first information on exercise movement, comprising one or more storage media; a second memory storing instructions, comprising one or more storage media; and at least one processor, comprising processing circuitry ([0001]; [0061]; [0073]; [0078] lines 3-7: e.g., a system comprising a wearable device—such as, one in the form of a smartwatch, wherein the watch comprises various components, including: a processor, a display interface, a storage, etc. It is worth noting that Smartwatches normally incorporate two memory units—namely, a ROM and a RAM; and thereby, the smartwatch stores software/instructions executable by the processor. Note that the system also allows the user to select an exercise to be performed; and therefore, the storage also stores first information on exercise movement); wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the wearable device to: identify that an exercise of a user based on designated motions is started, ([0063]; [0066]: e.g., the system already comprises one or more sensors—i.e., an acceleration sensor, a gyro sensor; and thus, when the user selects a type of exercise to be performed, the system starts to sense—via one or more of its sensors—whether the user is performing the selected exercise), obtain second information on the designated motions; obtain, based on a first threshold value related to the first information, a first value indicating a number of times the designated motions with respect to the second information were performed ([0068]; [0091]; [0283]: e.g., note that regarding the type of exercise to be performed, the system displays to the user one or more parameters, including a time limit. Thus, the system obtains a second information—such as a time limit/duration—on the designated motion. Moreover, based on data sensed via the sensors above, the system extracts motion pattern that relates to the exercise that the user is performing; and the system further counts, based on comparing the user’s motion pattern to a prestored motion pattern that includes one or more ranges, the number of times that the user performed the exercise within the time limit. Thus, the count value above, which represents the number of times the user performed the exercise, is the “first value”. Similarly, at least one of the ranges, such as the first range of the prestored motion pattern above, corresponds to the “first threshold”. This is because it is understood that the first range includes at least one value that signifies the expected motion pattern—see FIG 12), obtain a second value indicating the number of times the designated motions with respect to the second information were performed; and display the first value and the second value on the display ([0091]: e.g., when the user completes performing the selected exercise, the system displays plurality of performance results to the user, including: (i) the first value already discussed above, which is the count value representing the number of times the user performed the exercise; and also (ii) a second count value that indicates the number of times the user has correctly performed the exercise. Thus, the second count value corresponds to the second value that indicates the number of times the designated motions with respect to the second information were performed).
Although KIM does not expressly teach that the second value above is obtained based on a second threshold value related to the first information, KIM already contemplates the process of considering, as applied to a selected exercise that the user is performing, one or more expected targets—such as, a target number of times to execute the exercise, the right execution posture of the selected exercise (see [0090]; [0091]).
Accordingly, given the above teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of KIM; for example, by incorporating one or more additional thresholds that indicates the maximum and/or the minimum number of times that the selected exercise is required to be performed correctly; so that the system further displays to the user, based on comparing the user’s performance with each of the above one or more thresholds, whether the user has succeeded—or failed to succeed—in achieving the maximum or the minimum requirement above, etc., and such information inspires the user to more accurately perform the exercise during his/her next schedule, etc.
Regarding claim 6, KIM teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per claim 1.
The limitation, “cause the wearable device to determine the second threshold value for obtaining the second value, within a designated range”, is already addressed per the modification discussed with respect to claim 1. In particular, the modified system of KIM already incorporates one or more additional thresholds that indicate the maximum and/or the minimum number of times that the selected exercise is required to be performed correctly; and accordingly, the wearable device already determines the second threshold value for obtaining the second value within a designated range (note that the same motivation discussed above per claim 1 applies to claim 6 since claim 6 is dependent on claim 1).
Regarding claim 11, KIM teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per claim 1.
KIM further teaches the exercise of the user is performed through a plurality of sets set based on repetitions of the designated motion according to a designated value; and cause the wearable device to identify, based on the first value corresponding to the designated value, that a first set among the plurality of sets are performed ([0088] to [0091]; [0108]; also FIG 21: e.g., the system provides the user with an exercise that the user is required to perform a target number of times; wherein the system also displays to the user the time limit for performing the above exercise; and subsequently, once the above time limit expires, the system displays performance results to the user; and furthermore, based on the user’s performance, the system adjusts the intensity of the exercise above by adjusting time limit and/or the target value and presents the adjusted exercise to the user. Accordingly, the device not only provides the user with at least two sets, each set based on repetitions of the designated motion according to a designated value; and furthermore, based on the first value corresponding to the designated value, the device determines or identifies that at least one of the two sets is performed. Note that the displaying of the performance data indicates the identification that the first set is performed).
Regarding claim 12, KIM teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per claim 11.
The limitation, “cause the wearable device to provide, based on the first value corresponding to the designated value, a notification representing an end of the first set”, is already addressed per the discussion presented above with respect to claim 11. This is because the performance results, which the system is displaying to the user after the expiration of the time limit ([0090]; [0091]), is already a notification (note that the specific content/topic of the notification does not have a patentable weight since it is directed to nonfunctional descriptive matter).
Regarding each of claims 16 and 20, KIM teaches the following claimed limitations: a method performed by a wearable device (or per claim 20, “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing one or more programs, wherein the one or more programs comprise instructions which, when executed by at least one processor of a wearable device with a display”) ([0001]; [0073]: e.g., a system comprising a wearable device—such as a smartwatch—for evaluating exercises that a user is performing; and wherein the watch comprises various components, including: a processor, a display interface, a storage, etc.), the method comprising (or per claim 20, “cause the wearable device to:”): identifying that an exercise of a user based on designated motions is started ( [0063]; [0066]: e.g., the system already comprises one or more sensors—i.e., an acceleration sensor, a gyro sensor; and thus, when the user selects a type of exercise to be performed, the system starts to sense—via one or more of its sensors—whether the user is performing the selected exercise), obtaining second information on the designated motions, obtaining, based on a first threshold value related to the first information, a first value indicating a number of times the designated motions with respect to the second information were performed ([0068]; [0091]; [0283]: e.g., note that regarding the type of exercise to be performed, the system displays to the user one or more parameters, including a time limit. Thus, the system obtains a second information—such as a time limit/duration—on the designated motion. Moreover, based on data sensed via the sensors above, the system extracts motion pattern that relates to the exercise that the user is performing; and the system further counts, based on comparing the user’s motion pattern to a prestored motion pattern that includes one or more ranges, the number of times that the user performed the exercise within the time limit. Thus, the count value above, which represents the number of times the user performed the exercise, is the “first value”. Similarly, at least one of the ranges, such as the first range of the prestored motion pattern above, corresponds to the “first threshold” since it is understood that the first range includes at least one value that signifies the expected motion pattern—see FIG 12), obtaining a second value indicating the number of times the designated motions with respect to the second information were performed, and displaying the first value and the second value on the display ([0091]: e.g., when the user completes performing the selected exercise, the system displays plurality of performance results to the user, including: (i) the first value already discussed above, which is the count value representing the number of times the user performed the exercise; and also (ii) a second count value that indicates the number of times the user has correctly performed the exercise. Thus, the second count value corresponds to the second value that indicates the number of times the designated motions with respect to the second information were performed).
Although KIM does not expressly teach that the second value above is obtained based on a second threshold value related to the first information, KIM already contemplates the process of considering, as applied to a selected exercise that the user is performing, one or more expected targets—such as, a target number of times to execute the exercise, the right execution posture of the selected exercise (see [0090]; [0091]).
Accordingly, given the above teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of KIM; for example, by incorporating one or more additional thresholds that indicates the maximum and/or the minimum number of times that the selected exercise is required to be performed correctly; so that the system further displays to the user, based on comparing the user’s performance with each of the above one or more thresholds, whether the user has succeeded—or failed to succeed—in achieving the maximum or the minimum requirement above, etc., and such information inspires the user to more accurately perform the exercise during his/her next schedule, etc.
● Claims 2, 3, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over KIM 2018/0353810 in view of Burton 2011/0003665.
Regarding each of claims 2 and 17, KIM teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per claims 1 and 16 respectively.
KIM further teaches, the screen comprises a first visual object representing the first value and a second visual object representing the second value ([0091]: e.g., the system already displays (i) the first value, which is the count value indicating the number of times the user performed the exercise, and (ii) the second value, which is count value that indicates the number of times the user has correctly performed the exercise. Note that per the specification, the so-called “first visual object” is the same as the first value; and similarly, the so-called “second visual object” is the same as the second value; see [0180]).
KIM does not expressly teach, displaying a screen for an input of at least one of the first value/visual object and the second value/visual object.
However, Burton teaches a system that comprises at least one wearable device—such as, a watch that a user wears when performing an exercise, so that the watch displays various workout metrics to the user ([0208]); and furthermore, besides automatically detecting—via at least one of its sensors—the exercise that the user is performing, the system also allows the user to manually override and make a correction if an error related to a workout occurs due a failure of the automatic detection ([0259]).
Accordingly, given the above teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of KIM in view of Burton; for example, by upgrading the system’s algorithm, so that the smartwatch provides the user with at least one interface, which provides the user with the option to manually correct to one or more of the results being displayed; for instance, when the user (and/or his trainer) notices that the automatic detection failed to show the correct data that represents user’s performance (e.g., due to a nearby interference affecting one of its sensors, the smartwatch failed to properly count the number of times that the user has performed the selected exercise, etc.); and the above modification provides the system with a failsafe mechanism to mitigate one or more unexpected malfunctions of the system.
Regarding each of claims 3 and 18, KIM in view of Burton teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per claims 2 and 17 respectively.
Although KIM does not teach that the second visual object is highlighted compared to the first visual object in the screen, Burton teaches that the system displays data related to one or more performance results of the user according to one or more different colors ([0204]; [0261]).
Accordingly, given the above teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify KIM in view of Burton; for example, by upgrading the system’s algorithm, so that it further highlights one or more of the performance results according to one or more colors; such as, displaying the second count value, which indicates the number of times that the user has correctly performed the exercise, in red color when the user fails to meet the corresponding target, etc., so that the user would have a further option to readily recognize one or more improvements that he/she is required to make, etc.
● Considering each of claims 4, 5, 7-10, 13-15 and 19 as a whole, the prior art does not each or suggest the claims above (regarding the state of the prior art, see the obviousness analysis discussed above with respect to claims 1-3, 6, 11, 12, 16-18 and 20).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRUK A GEBREMICHAEL whose telephone number is (571) 270-3079. The examiner can normally be reached from 7:00 AM - 3:00 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, PETER VASAT can be reached on (571) 270-7625. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRUK A GEBREMICHAEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights