DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception(s) without significantly more.
[STEP 1] Claim 1-10 recites a software platform that is not one of the statutory categories of invention. While claims 11-22 recite at least one step or structure. Thus, the claim is to a process or product, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES for claim 11-22 and NO for claim 1-10).
[STEP2A PRONG I] The claim(s) 1, 11 and 19 recite(s):
A software platform including a trainee device, a field screen, a trainee screen, for connecting activity trainees with activity trainers, comprising:
a trainee interface, comprising options for choosing one or more activity lessons;
a trainer interface, comprising options for generating one or more activity lessons; and
a function for sending and receiving payments.
Claim 11:
A field screen comprising a display for displaying the output of a software platform for connecting activity trainees with activity trainers, said field screen comprising one or more cameras, the software platform comprising:
a trainee interface, comprising options for choosing one or more activity lessons;
a trainer interface, comprising options for generating one or more activity lessons; and,
a function for sending and receiving payments; wherein the field screen is sized and disposed to be visible by a trainee in a training field.
Claim 19:
A method of training for an activity trainee, comprising:
a. Accessing a software platform for connecting the activity trainee with one or more activity trainers;
b. Integrating the software platform into a hardware device comprising one or more integrated cameras enabling live video feeds; and
c. Scheduling one or more activity training sessions, wherein the activity trainer exchanges live video feed with the one or more activity trainers while performing an activity.
The non-highlighted aforementioned limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation between people but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “software platform”, “a trainee device”, “field screen”, “a trainee screen”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed between people. For example, but for the recited language, the step in the context of this claim encompasses a teacher and student to exchange payments for lessons/exchange message with one another.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing interactions between people, then it falls within the “Organization of Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim recites a judicial exception, and the analysis must therefore proceed to Step 2A Prong Two.
[STEP2A PRONG II] This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional element(s) – software platform”, “a trainee device”, “field screen”, “a trainee screen”,
The software platform”, “a trainee device”, “field screen”, “a trainee screen”, in the aforementioned steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
[STEP2B] 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 element of using a processor to perform the aforementioned steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, which cannot provide an inventive concept (for example, see paragraph 22-23).
As noted previously, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the aforementioned concept in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
The claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO).
Claim(s) 2-10, 12-18, and 20-22 is/are dependent on supra claim(s) and includes all the limitations of the claim(s). Therefore, the dependent claim(s) recite(s) the same abstract idea. For example, claims 2-10, 12-18 and 20-22 are either directed to the communication between the party or is directed to the field of use or technological environment. The claim recites no additional limitations. Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
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 11-18 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. The limitation of claims 11 set forth limitation of “wherein the field screen is sized and disposed to be visible by a trainee in a training field”; while 16 set forth the limitation of “one or more training mirrors are sized comparably to the field screen”. These limitation requires one of skilled in the art to determine the metes and bound of the terminology. A review of the specification do not provide a teaching on how one skilled in the art can determine if the field screen is sized to be visible by a trainee in a training field or if one or more training mirrors are sized comparably to the field screen (see paragraph 14 and 49) a. A claim term that requires the exercise of subjective judgment without restriction may render the claim indefinite. In re Musgrave, 431 F.2d 882, 893, 167 USPQ 280, 289 (CCPA 1970). Claim scope cannot depend solely on the unrestrained, subjective opinion of a particular individual purported to be practicing the invention. Datamize LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 1350, 75 USPQ2d 1801, 1807 (Fed. Cir. 2005)); see also Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 766 F.3d 1364, 1373, 112 USPQ2d 1188 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (holding the claim phrase “unobtrusive manner” indefinite because the specification did not “provide a reasonably clear and exclusive definition, leaving the facially subjective claim language without an objective boundary”). Claims 12-15 and 17-18 are rejected due to its dependencies on a rejected claim.
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.
Claims 1-5, 11, 13-15 and 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Putnam US 10,758,780 and in view of Halpern US 20110016057 A1
Claim 1: The Putnam reference provide a teaching of a software platform including a trainee device, a field screen, a trainee screen (see col. 25:25-40), for connecting activity trainees with activity trainers, comprising:
a trainee interface, comprising options for choosing one or more activity lessons (see col. 26:25-40);
a trainer interface, comprising options for generating one or more activity lessons (see col. 41:15-27).
The Putnam reference is silent on the teaching of a function for sending and receiving payments. However, the Halpern reference provides a teaching of function for sending and receiving payments (see paragraph 37).
Therefore, 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 the Putnam reference with the feature of function for sending and receiving payments, as taught by the Halpern reference, in order to ensure that instructor are fairly compensated for their service (see paragraph 17).
Claim 2: The Putnam reference is silent on the teaching of an administrator interface comprising options for managing one or more trainee user accounts (see col. 27:20-30) and one or more trainer user accounts (see col. 41:45-57).
Claim 3: The Putnam reference provide a teaching of comprises one or more cameras, further wherein the software platform comprises motion tracking software usable with the one or more cameras (see col. 18:15-25 motion tracking for individual’s limb).
Claim 4: The Putnam reference provides a teaching of a device hardware that comprises one or more speakers (see col. 30:45-48 speakers), further wherein the software platform comprises motion tracking software usable with one or more cameras (see col. 18:15-20).
Claim 5: The Putnam reference provides a teaching of wherein the one or more cameras enable live video exchange between a trainee and a trainer and recording and storage of video feeds (see col. 17:47-60).
Claim 11: The Putnam reference provides a teaching of a field screen comprising a display for displaying the output of a software platform for connecting activity trainees with activity trainers, said field screen comprising one or more cameras, the software platform comprising:
a trainee interface, comprising options for choosing one or more activity lessons (see col. 26:25-40);
a trainer interface, comprising options for generating one or more activity lessons (see col. 41:15-27).;
The Putnam reference is silent on the teaching of a function for sending and receiving payments. However, the Halpern reference provides a teaching of function for sending and receiving payments (see paragraph 37).
Therefore, 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 the Putnam reference with the feature of function for sending and receiving payments, as taught by the Halpern reference, in order to ensure that instructor are fairly compensated for their service (see paragraph 17).
With respect to the limitation of “wherein the field screen is sized and disposed to be visible by a trainee in a training field”. The examiner takes the position that the limitation is directed to the intended use limitation of the field screen. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In this particular case, the field screen of Putnam, without being modfied, can be disposed to be visible by trainee in training field.
Claim 13: The Putnam reference provides a teaching of the field screen is in integrated with one or more training mirrors (see col. 20:9-15 smart mirror).
Claim 14: The Putnam reference provides a teaching of wherein the display is visible in indoor environments and can be modulated to adapt to a variety of ambient lighting conditions (see col. 27:40-55).
Claim 15: The Putnam reference is silent on the teaching of wherein the one or more training mirrors are sized comparably to the field screen.
With respect to the limitation of “wherein the one or more training mirrors are sized comparably to the field screen.”. The examiner takes the position that the limitation is directed to the intended use limitation of the field screen. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In this particular case, the field screen of Putnam, without being modfied, can be placed wherein the one or more training mirrors are sized comparably to the field screen..
Claim 17: The Putnam reference provide a teaching of wherein one or more training mirrors are treated or coated to function as indoor/outdoor screens for projectors.
With respect to the limitation of “one or more training mirrors are treated or coated to function as indoor/outdoor screens for projectors”. The examiner takes the position that the limitation is directed to the intended use limitation of the field screen. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In this particular case, the field screen of Putnam, without being modfied, can be disposed to one or more training mirrors are treated or coated to function as indoor/outdoor screens for projectors.
Claim 18: The Putnam reference provides a teaching of wherein the one or more cameras enable live video exchange between a trainee and a trainer and recording and storage of video feeds through the software platform (see col. 17:47-60).
Claim 19: The Putnam reference provides a teaching of
a. Accessing a software platform for connecting the activity trainee with one or more activity trainers (see col. 29:50-69);
b. Integrating the software platform into a hardware device comprising one or more integrated cameras enabling live video feeds (see col. 31:30-45); and
c. Scheduling one or more activity training sessions, wherein the activity trainer exchanges live video feed with the one or more activity trainers while performing an activity (see col. 28:50-60)
The Putnam reference is silent on the teaching of a function for sending and receiving payments. However, the Halpern reference provides a teaching of function for sending and receiving payments (see paragraph 37).
Therefore, 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 the Putnam reference with the feature of function for sending and receiving payments, as taught by the Halpern reference, in order to ensure that instructor are fairly compensated for their service (see paragraph 17).
Claim 20: The Putnam reference provides a teaching of wherein the one or more activity trainers provide live feedback to the activity trainee through the software platform (see col. 35:55-65).
Claim 21: The Putnam reference provides a teaching of wherein the software platform enables the recording, storage and retrieval of live video feeds (see col. 24:54-67), and further wherein the one or more trainees and activity trainer can exchange messages (see col. 35:5-15).
Claim 22: With respect to the limitation of “hardware device is a filed screen integrated into an activity field”. The examiner takes the position that the limitation is directed to the intended use limitation of the field screen. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In this particular case, the field screen of Putnam, without being modified, can be integrated into an activity field.
Claim(s) 6-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Putnam US 10,758,780, in view of Halpern US 20110016057 and further in view of Stuckey US 20220013025
Claim 6: The Putnam reference provide a teaching of the creation of a plurality of user accounts for one or more trainees (see col. 27:20-30), one or more trainers (see col. 41:45-55).
However, the Putnam reference is silent on the teaching of creation of a plurality of user accounts for one or more administrators. However, the Stuckey reference provides a teaching of creation of a plurality of user accounts for one or more administrators (see paragraph 71).
Therefore, 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 the Putname reference with the feature of creation of a plurality of user accounts for one or more administrators, as taught by the Stuckey reference, in order to allow administrator that can assist in the planning of the lessons.
Claim 7: The Putnam reference provide a teaching of comprising one or more calendars for each the plurality of user accounts (see col. 29:10-20).
Claim 8: The Putnam reference provides a teaching of a messaging service enabling message exchanges between user accounts for trainees and trainers (see col. 35:10-20).
Claim 9: The Putname reference is silent on the teaching of comprising a function for leaving comments on lessons. However, the Stuckey reference provides a teaching of comprising a function for leaving comments on lessons (see paragraph 77).
Therefore, 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 the Putnam reference with the feature of comprising a function for leaving comments on lessons, as taught by the Stuckey reference, in order to allow the trainer to receive feedback on their teaching performance.
Claim 10: The Putnam reference provides a teaching of comprising one or more functions for ranking and organizing entries one or more lists of entries comprising user accounts for trainees, user accounts for trainers, and lessons (see col. 34:50-60).
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Putnam US 10,758,78, in view of Halpern US 20110016057 and in view of Shin et al KR 20200126578 A
Claim 12: The Putnam reference is silent on the teaching of wherein the one or more cameras include actuators to permit pivoting and rotation of each of the one or more cameras.
However, the Shin reference provides a teaching of wherein the one or more cameras include actuators to permit pivoting and rotation of each of the one or more cameras (see page 4 last 3 paragraph).
Therefore, 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 the Putnam reference with the feature of wherein the one or more cameras include actuators to permit pivoting and rotation of each of the one or more cameras, as taught by the Shin et al reference, in order to allow the user a convenient way to adjust the camera during the exercise.
Claims 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Putnam US 10,758,780 and in view of Halpern US 20110016057 A1 and further in view of Yoganandan US 20190347954
Claim 16: The Putnam reference is silent on the teaching of wherein the one or more training mirrors are disposed to be on either side of the field screen.
However, the Yoganandan reference provides a teaching of wherein the one or more training mirrors are disposed to be on either side of the field screen (see Fig. 1 unmarked mirror next to the mirror 110).
Therefore, 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 the Putnam reference with the feature of wherein the one or more training mirrors are disposed to be on either side of the field screen, as taught by the Yoganandan, in order to provide the user with a different perspective during the exercise.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT J UTAMA whose telephone number is (571)272-1676. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 17:30 Monday - Friday.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at (571)270-1344. 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.
/ROBERT J UTAMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights