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 Interpretation
For clarity of the record, Examiner notes that claims 5, 12, 13, and 17 recite the limitation “correct[ing] the exercise-ready posture”. Examiner notes that, per paragraphs 0140-0143, the limitation is interpreted as updating or modifying the computer-based reference posture for subsequent analysis or counting rather than correcting a user’s posture or providing feedback.
Claim Objections
Claims 4, 9, 13, 16, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 4, line 5, “being maintained a similarity” should read “being maintained by a similarity” or “being maintained based on a similarity”.
In claim 9, line 10, “determine a zero crossing section” should read “determine the zero crossing section”.
In claim 13, line 3, “in a state” should read “in the state” as the limitation has antecedence in claim 12.
In claim 16, line 5, “being maintained a similarity” should read “being maintained by a similarity” or “being maintained based on a similarity”.
In claim 20, lines 2-3, “a processor of an electronic device individually and/or collectively” should read either “at least one processer of an electronic device individually and/or collectively” or “a processor of an electronic device individually” as collectively implies the presence of more than one processor.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 5 and 17 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 5 recites the limitation “determine a second recognition schema, different from the first recognition schema, as the recognition schema for counting the exercise corresponding to the exercise-ready posture in a state in which the exercise posture corresponds to the reference exercise posture”, and based on paragraphs 0150-0151 of the instant application, it appears the second recognition schema is intended to be the same as the “recognition schema” for claim 1. However, the interpretation that it is the same schema raises an issue of clarity as claim 5 recites the exercise posture does not correspond to the reference exercise posture while the limitation requires “the exercise posture corresponds to the reference exercise posture”. The limitation appears to require a determination step, i.e., “determine if the exercise posture does not correspond to the reference exercise posture” and/or a conditional limitation, i.e., “correct the posture if the posture does not correspond and if the posture does not correspond determine a first recognition schema and if it does correspond determine a second recognition schema”. The lack of the alternative/optional limitation recitation renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear if the determination step is optional or required and if both schemas should be used as when the posture is corrected the exercise posture would correspond to the reference exercise posture and both schemas should be used to count the exercise rather than one or the other. Therefore, the limitation renders the claim indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 17 recites the limitation “determine a second recognition schema, different from the first recognition schema, as the recognition schema for counting the exercise corresponding to the exercise-ready posture in a state in which the exercise posture corresponds to the reference exercise posture”, and based on paragraphs 0150-0151 of the instant application, it appears the second recognition schema is intended to be the same as the “recognition schema” for claim 1. However, the interpretation that it is the same schema raises an issue of clarity as claim 5 recites the exercise posture does not correspond to the reference exercise posture while the limitation requires “the exercise posture corresponds to the reference exercise posture”. The limitation appears to require an optional limitation, i.e., correct the posture if the posture does not correspond and if the posture does not correspond determine the first recognition schema and if it does correspond determine the second recognition schema. The lack of the alternative/optional limitation recitation renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear if the determination step is optional or required and if both schemas should be used as when the posture is corrected the exercise posture would correspond to the reference exercise posture and both schemas should be used to count the exercise rather than one or the other. Therefore, the limitation renders the claim indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1, 15, and 20 recite a machine for performing a process, the process, and a computer program product (manufacture) including the process, the process including the steps of based on detecting an exercise start trigger, provide exercise guidance; recognize an exercise-ready posture of a user for a specified time period, provide exercise posture information related to a type of an exercise corresponding to the exercise-ready posture, drive a recognition schema for counting the exercise corresponding to the exercise-ready posture, perform exercise counting based on the recognition schema, and provide exercise information based on the exercise counting. The recited steps, as drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are a process that is a method of applying an abstract idea, specifically mental processes (evaluation (drive a recognition schema for counting the exercise; perform exercise counting based on the schema), judgement (provide exercise posture information; provide exercise information), observation (detecting an exercise start trigger; recognize an exercise-ready posture), opinion (provide exercise guidance)) and/or certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of teaching (provide exercise guidance; provide exercise posture information; drive a recognition schema for counting the exercise; perform exercise counting based on the schema; provide exercise information). If claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, include a mental process and/or certain methods of organizing human activity, the limitations fall under the abstract ideas judicial exception and therefore recite ineligible subject matter. Accordingly, claims 1, 15, and 20 recite abstract ideas.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not recite additional elements that are significantly more than the judicial exception or meaningfully limit the practice of the judicial exception. The additional elements are an electronic device; a display [claim 1]; at least one (specified) sensor; memory storing instructions [claim 1]; at least one processor operatively connected to the display , the at least one sensor, and the memory, wherein the instructions, when executed by the a least one processor individually and/or collectively, cause the electronic device to perform the process [claim 1]; a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by a processor of an electronic device individually and/or collectively, cause the electronic device to perform operations [claim 20]; and recognizing the exercise-ready posture based on sensor data from at least one specified sensor of the at least one sensor. The additional elements are insignificant extra-solution activity and instructions for applying the judicial exception with a generic computing device as, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional step(s) is/are mere data gathering by gathering/basing the recognition on sensor data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The other additional elements of an electronic device, a display, at least one sensor, memory, at least one processor, instructions, and a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium (NTCRRM) are generic computer components for performing the above method, per MPEP 2106.05(f). Under their broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional elements are generic components of a computing device used to apply the abstract idea. Further, paragraph 0264 of the specification states the electronic device may be one of various types of electronic devices including portable communication device, computer device, wearable device, or the like. As such, these additional elements are interpreted as merely instructions to apply the judicial exception. Accordingly, the additional elements and steps do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional step(s) of basing the recognition on sensor data is/are insignificant extra-solution activity performed during the abstract idea. The additional elements of an electronic device, a display, at least one sensor, memory, at least one processor, instructions, and NTCRRM used to perform the process are generic computing components/device used to apply the judicial exception and therefore fall under the “apply it” limitation of the judicial exception and do not amount to significantly more per MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, the limitations, taken in combination, add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. As such, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional elements do not meaningfully limit the practice of the abstract idea and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. Therefore, claims 1, 15, and 20 are not directed to eligible subject matter as they are directed to abstract ideas without significantly more.
Claims 2-14 and 16-19 are dependent from claims 1 and 15 and include all the limitations of the independent claims. Therefore, the dependent claims recite the same abstract idea. The limitations of the dependent claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For example:
The limitations of claims 2 and 14 recite further insignificant extra solution activity and instructions for applying the judicial exceptions with a generic computing device including basing the recognition on a countable signal from the sensor (mere data gathering for performing the abstract idea of recognizing the exercise counting (evaluation MP)) and establishing wireless communication and transmitting data to an external device for display (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). The communication circuitry is a generic computing component for performing the steps. The limitations fail to provide any teaching that integrates the judicial exceptions into a practical application or amounts to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. For this reason, the analysis performed on the independent claims is also applicable on these claims.
The limitations of claims 3-13 and 16-19 recite further abstract ideas including recognize an exercise posture (observation/evaluation MP), provide exercise posture information (judgement MP, CMOHA), compare the exercise posture with a reference (evaluation MP), determine whether the posture is being maintained (evaluation MP), correct the posture (judgement MP, CMOHA), determine a recognition schema (judgment MP), accumulate and provide the exercise information (observation MP, CMOHA), determine the posture is maintained (observation MP), drive the schema (judgement MP), detect an exercise candidate section (observation MP), filter motion (evaluation MP), determine a start and end point (evaluation MP), determine a similarity (evaluation MP), detect the exercise candidate (evaluation MP), detect zero crossing points (observation/evaluation MP), detect peaks and valleys (observation/evaluation MP), determine whether the peaks and valleys satisfy a condition (evaluation MP), check a sequence (evaluation MP), determine a zero crossing section (evaluation MP), performed filtering (evaluation MP), determine the user is maintaining the posture (evaluation MP, CMOHA), update the exercise information (judgement MP, CMOHA), determine that the exercise posture is not maintained (evaluation MP, CMOHA), correct the exercise-ready posture (judgement MP, CMOHA), accumulate the exercise candidate (evaluation MP), determine a correction history (evaluation MP), correct the posture (judgement MP, CMOHA), and provide guidance on the posture (judgement MP, CMOHA). As the limitations are further abstract ideas, the limitations cannot meaningfully limit or amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas of the independent claims. The additional elements of the dependent claims are further insignificant extra-solution activities including displaying results of the process on the display, data gathering by extracting a signal through signal processing, and defining the data being manipulated by defining the characteristic parameters. The limitations fail to provide any teaching that integrates the judicial exceptions into a practical application or amounts to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. For this reason, the analysis performed on the independent claims is also applicable on these claims.
Accordingly, claims 2-14 and 16-19 are directed to abstract ideas without significantly more and are not drawn to eligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6-10, 14-15, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Morris et al. (US PGPub 20140257535), hereinafter referred to as Morris.
Regarding claims 1, 15, and 20, Morris teaches an electronic device (Abstract; Paragraphs 0012, 0015 teaches a physical activity monitoring device) comprising: a display (Paragraphs 0015, 0083-0084; “display subsystem 280”); at least one sensor (Paragraphs 0015-0016; “sensor array 210 may include one or more sensors”); memory storing instructions (Paragraph 0015, 0091-0092 teach a storage machine configured to hold instructions); and at least one processor operatively connected to the display, the at least one sensor, and the memory, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually and/or collectively, cause the electronic device (Paragraphs 0015, 0056-0057, 0088-0090 teach the device includes a controller including a logic machine including one or more processors configured to execute software instructions wherein the controller is connected to the display, sensor array, and storage machine (memory)) to [claim 1] perform the method, a method of operating an electronic device [claim 15] (Paragraphs 0014, 0082 teach the device can be used to perform a method of training a user and smart activity analysis), and a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by a processor of an electronic device individually and/or collectively, cause the electronic device to perform operations [claim 20] (Paragraphs 0015, 0056-0057, 0088-0090 teach the device includes a storage machine which can include non-transitory forms of memory connected to a controller including a logic machine including one or more processors configured to execute software instructions to perform the functions of the device), comprising:
based on detecting an exercise start trigger, providing exercise guidance (Paragraphs 0081-0083 teach the user may select a workout and request to begin the workout (start trigger) and the device provides the user guidance to start the workout and/or a workout routine);
recognizing an exercise-ready posture of a user for a specified time period based on sensor data from at least one specified sensor of the electronic device (Paragraphs 0013, 0019, 0039, 0043-0044, 0084 teach the device can recognize and identify a physical activity and/or exercise based on gathered sensor data including a starting point of the activity or exercise during a period of time/interval);
providing exercise posture information related to a type of an exercise corresponding to the exercise-ready posture (Paragraph 0042 teaches the device can provide feedback regarding the user’s form (exercise posture information) based on the recognized type of exercise);
driving a recognition schema for counting the exercise corresponding to the exercise-ready posture (Paragraphs 0013, 0017, 0042, 0051, 0054 teach the device can identify and detect physical activity or exercises based on patterns wherein a voting scheme can be used to determine the activity or exercise and counting the repetitions the user performs for the identified exercise);
performing exercise counting based on the recognition schema (Paragraphs 0042, 0051, 0054-0055 teach the device can count the repetitions of a repetitive physical activity or exercise in part based on the voting machine recognition of the activity or exercise); and
providing exercise information based on the exercise counting (Paragraphs 0080, 0084 teach the device may dynamically display the number of repetitions (exercise counting) and other feedback).
Regarding claim 2, Morris further teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually and/or collectively, cause the electronic device to recognize the exercise counting based on a countable signal from the at least one specified sensor (Paragraphs 0056-0058, 0061 teach the counting of repetitions is based on receiving and processing a signal from the sensor array including specified sensor such as an accelerometer).
Regarding claims 6 and 18, Morris further teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually and/or collectively, cause the electronic device to: determine whether the exercise-ready posture is maintained for a predetermined time period based on a result of recognizing the exercise-ready posture during the specified time period (Paragraphs 0019, 0030-0031, 0038 teach the device segments the received signal and determines a subtotal of classified “exercise” (exercise-ready posture) wherein the system determine the time segment relates to an exercise state or specific activity when it exceeds a predetermined threshold), and drive the recognition schema corresponding to the exercise-ready posture in a state in which the exercise-ready posture is maintained for the predetermined time period (Paragraphs 0019, 0030-0031, 0038 0056-0058, 0061 teach the counting of repetitions is based on the segmentation such that only periods of actual exercise are counted which would mean the periods exceeding the predetermined threshold (time period)).
Regarding claims 7 and 19, Morris further teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually and/or collectively, cause the electronic device to: detect an exercise counting candidate section based on the sensor data from the at least one specified sensor (Paragraphs 0063, 0065, 0071 teach the device can determine a set of candidate peaks and valleys from the sensor signal data), filter an exercise motion and a non-exercise motion for the exercise counting candidate section (Paragraphs 0034-0035, 0063, 0068-0069, 0071 teach the device can filter the peaks and valleys in order to filter out non-exercise activity related signals from the activity signals), determine an exercise posture at a start point and an end point of the exercise counting candidate section (Paragraphs 0039, 0055 teaches the system can determine a start and end time of a physical activity including the corresponding attributes), and determine a similarity between the exercise-ready posture and the exercise posture of the exercise counting candidate section (Paragraphs 0030-0031 teach the device may compare the signal segments to a threshold (similarity) determined by the machine learning as a classifier for the signal segment (candidate) being an exercise state).
Regarding claim 8, Morris further teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually and/or collectively, cause the electronic device to: extract a countable signal through signal processing of the sensor data from the at least one specified sensor (Paragraphs 0057-0060 teaches the device filters the raw data to create a filtered data signal which can be used for counting repetitions), and detect the exercise counting candidate section based on the extracted countable signal (Paragraphs 0063-0066, 0068-0069, 0071 teaches the device processes the filtered signal (extracted signal) to determine candidate peaks (counting candidate section)).
Regarding claim 9, Morris further teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually and/or collectively, cause the electronic device to: detect zero crossing points for the extracted countable signal (Paragraphs 0027, 0060 teach the device can calculate signal characteristics for each sensor output signal including zero-crossings), detect peaks and valleys within a zero crossing section Paragraphs 0027, 0060-0063, 0071 teach the device can calculate signal characteristics for each sensor output signal including peaks and valleys), determine whether the peaks and valleys satisfy a specified condition based on whether the peaks and valleys pass through a predefined upper boundary and lower boundary (Paragraphs 0027, 0069, 0071 teach the device determines strong peaks and valleys including filtering the candidate peaks based on peak amplitude wherein the strong peaks are filtered from the weak by exceeding a relative threshold (boundary)), check a sequence in which the countable signal passes through the predefined upper boundary and lower boundary within the zero crossing section in a state in which the specified condition is satisfied (Paragraphs 0027, 0065-0069 teaches the system filters (checks) the candidate peaks and valleys including the strong peaks and valleys), and determine a zero crossing section of the countable signal that satisfies the specified condition as the exercise counting candidate section (Paragraphs 0063, 0069, 0071 teaches the candidate peaks and valleys are filtered such that only the ones that pass the filter process are counted (counting candidate).
Regarding claim 10, Morris further teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually and/or collectively, cause the electronic device to perform filtering of exercise counting false recognition based on characteristic parameters for distinguishing between the exercise motion and the non-exercise motion (Paragraphs 0019, 0025, 0027-0028 teach the device can identify and calculate signal characteristics as part of the process of distinguishing exercise from non-exercise activities to avoid false recognition), and wherein the characteristic parameters comprise at least one of an amount of change in acceleration (Paragraphs 0025-0027, 0069-0070 teach the signal characteristics can include acceleration data including amplitudes (amount of change) of acceleration signal) or an acceleration peak-valley interval (Paragraphs 0025, 0066, 0068 teach the characteristics include peak/valley distances (interval)).
Regarding claim 14, Morris further teaches further comprising communication circuitry (Paragraphs 0015, 0096 teach the device includes a communication subsystem), wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually and/or collectively, cause the electronic device to: control the communication circuitry to establish wireless communication with an external device based on detecting the exercise start trigger (Paragraphs 0082, 0096 teach the device can be connected with an external device such as a PC, mobile phone, or gaming console wherein the user selects a workout (start trigger) on the external device), transmit visual information related to exercise coaching to the external device, and enable the visual information related to the exercise coaching to be displayed through at least one of the display of the electronic device or a display of the external device (Paragraphs 0042, 0078-0080, 0082, 0084 teach the device may communicate with a game system or other external device and transmit the exercise or activity data and information including the repetitions and other metrics wherein the feedback can be displayed on the device display or the game system or external device).
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.
Claim(s) 3, 4, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morris in view of Trehan et al. (US PGPub 20230071274), hereinafter referred to as Trehan.
Regarding claim 3, Morris may not explicitly teach recognize an exercise posture based on the recognized exercise-ready posture, and provide, during the recognition of the exercise posture, exercise posture information related to the recognized exercise-ready posture by displaying at least one of visual images or text on the display. However, Trehan teaches a system and method for providing feedback on physical activities based on analyzing sensor data to determine a user’s posture, pose, and body positions and performance during an activity wherein the system can determine whether a detected initial position and pose matches an expected/target pose and position, identify the activity and corresponding movement parameters, and present feedback and guidance including images and videos demonstrating the workout/activity and/or text messages to correct the pose (Paragraphs 0039, 0057, 0060, 0065, 0119-0120, 0122, 0128).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Morris to incorporate the teachings of Trehan by applying the technique of providing posture feedback and guidance of Trehan on the display of Morris based on the recognized activity or exercise of Morris, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to exercise monitoring systems using wearable sensors including counting a number of repetitions of an identified exercise. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Morris by determining a movement corresponding to a recognized exercise posture and presenting feedback and guidance corresponding to the recognized exercise in order to improve Morris in the same way by presenting real time guidance and feedback to improve user performance. Upon such modification, the method and system of Morris would include recognize an exercise posture based on the recognized exercise-ready posture, and provide, during the recognition of the exercise posture, exercise posture information related to the recognized exercise-ready posture by displaying at least one of visual images or text on the display. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Trehan with Morris’s system and method in order to improve user performance by providing guidance on performing an exercise or activity.
Regarding claim 4, Morris may not explicitly teach wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually and/or collectively, cause the electronic device to: compare the exercise posture with a reference exercise posture corresponding to the recognized exercise-ready posture, and determine whether the exercise posture is being maintained a similarity between the exercise posture and the reference exercise posture. However, Trehan further teaches the user’s movement, poses, and posture is compared to an expected/mapped movement, poses, and posture for the activity wherein the system provides feedback based on the similarity between the detected and target movements and can determine an overall accuracy between the detected and target movement/poses (Paragraphs 0063, 0068, 0094, 0118-0120, 0122-0123).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Morris to incorporate the teachings of Trehan by applying the technique of providing posture feedback and guidance based on comparing a detected movement/pose to a target movement/pose of Trehan on the display of Morris based on the recognized activity or exercise of Morris, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to exercise monitoring systems using wearable sensors including counting a number of repetitions of an identified exercise. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Morris by comparing the detected movement and poses of the user during an activity to a target movement and poses and determining an overall accuracy (similarity) of the user’s movements in order to improve Morris in the same way by presenting real time guidance and feedback to improve user performance. Upon such modification, the method and system of Morris would include wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually and/or collectively, cause the electronic device to: compare the exercise posture with a reference exercise posture corresponding to the recognized exercise-ready posture, and determine whether the exercise posture is being maintained a similarity between the exercise posture and the reference exercise posture. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Trehan with Morris’s system and method in order to improve user performance by providing guidance on performing an exercise or activity.
Regarding claim 16, Morris may not explicitly teach recognizing an exercise posture based on the exercise-ready posture, comparing the exercise posture with a reference exercise posture corresponding to the recognized exercise-ready posture, and determining whether the exercise posture is being maintained a similarity between the exercise posture and the reference exercise posture. However, Trehan teaches a system and method for providing feedback on physical activities based on analyzing sensor data to determine a user’s posture, pose, and body positions and performance during an activity wherein the system can determine whether a detected initial position and pose matches an expected/target pose and position, identify the activity and corresponding movement parameters, and comparing the user’s movement, poses, and posture to an expected/mapped movement, poses, and posture for the activity wherein the system provides the feedback based on the similarity between the detected and target movements and can determine an overall accuracy between the detected and target movement/poses (Paragraphs 0039, 0057, 0060, 0063, 0065, 0068, 0094, 0118-0120, 0122-0123, 0128).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Morris to incorporate the teachings of Trehan by applying the technique of providing posture feedback and guidance based on comparing a detected movement/pose to a target movement/pose of Trehan on the display of Morris based on the recognized activity or exercise of Morris, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to exercise monitoring systems using wearable sensors including counting a number of repetitions of an identified exercise. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Morris by comparing the detected movement and poses of the user during an activity to a target movement and poses and determining an overall accuracy (similarity) of the user’s movements in order to improve Morris in the same way by presenting real time guidance and feedback to improve user performance. Upon such modification, the method and system of Morris would include recognizing an exercise posture based on the exercise-ready posture, comparing the exercise posture with a reference exercise posture corresponding to the recognized exercise-ready posture, and determining whether the exercise posture is being maintained a similarity between the exercise posture and the reference exercise posture. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Trehan with Morris’s system and method in order to improve user performance by providing guidance on performing an exercise or activity.
Claim(s) 5 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morris in view of Trehan as applied to claims 4 and 16 above, and further in view of Shpuza et al. (US PGPub 20220262010), hereinafter referred to as Shpuza.
Regarding claims 5 and 17, Morris further teaches determine a second recognition schema as the recognition schema for counting the exercise corresponding to the exercise-ready posture in a state in which the exercise posture corresponds to the reference exercise posture (Paragraphs 0013, 0017, 0042, 0051, 0054 teach the device can identify and detect physical activity or exercises based on patterns (recognition schema) wherein a voting scheme can be used to determine the activity or exercise and counting the repetitions the user performs for the identified exercise thereby matching the data to a stored/reference pattern), and continuously accumulate and provide the exercise information according to the counting of the exercise based on the second recognition schema (Paragraphs 0042, 0051, 0054-0055 teach the device can count the repetitions of a repetitive physical activity or exercise in part based on the voting machine recognition of the activity or exercise). Morris in view of Trehan may not explicitly teach correct the exercise-ready posture in a state in which the exercise posture does not correspond to the reference exercise posture, determine a first recognition schema as the recognition schema for counting the exercise corresponding to the corrected exercise-ready posture, based on the exercise-ready posture having been corrected, and continuously accumulate and provide the exercise information according to the counting of the exercise based on the first recognition schema. However, Shpuza teaches a system and method for extracting movement data from a video and sensor data of a user and identifying a movement type based on model analysis wherein the system includes multiple models based on a type of exercise and modified versions of the exercise and compares the user movement data to target movement data to determine the exercise type and count repetitions of the exercise wherein the target movement data can be scaled or otherwise modified based on differences between the user movement data and a target/idealized movement data based on analyzed similarities and differences (Abstract; Paragraphs 0018, 0029, 0037, 0048-0049, 0051, 0091-0092).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Morris in view of Trehan to incorporate the teachings of Shpuza by including a camera sensor and applying the technique of modifying target data for determining an exercise type based on user characteristics and/or differences between the measured and target data of Shpuza to the signal and data analysis of Morris, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to exercise monitoring systems using wearable sensors including counting a number of repetitions of an identified exercise. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Morris in view of Trehan by including a camera sensor providing data to the device over the communication subsystem and analyzing the captured camera and other sensor data to determine differences that require alignment or alternative models based on the comparison/differences such that the voting scheme and signal analysis of Morris would use updated (corrected) target data based on the scaling and/or alternative models in order to improve analysis accuracy and account for user specific differences and behaviors. Upon such modification, the method and system of Morris in view of Trehan would include correct the exercise-ready posture in a state in which the exercise posture does not correspond to the reference exercise posture, determine a first recognition schema as the recognition schema for counting the exercise corresponding to the corrected exercise-ready posture, based on the exercise-ready posture having been corrected, and continuously accumulate and provide the exercise information according to the counting of the exercise based on the first recognition schema. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Shpuza with Morris in view of Trehan’s system and method in order to improve analysis accuracy and account for user specific differences and behaviors (Shpuza Paragraphs 0033, 0038, 0048, 0092).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morris in view of Lianides et al. (US PGPub 20220105389), hereinafter referred to as Lianides.
Regarding claim 11, Morris may not explicitly teach wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually and/or collectively, cause the electronic device to: determine that the user is maintaining the exercise posture in a state in which the similarity exceeds a threshold, and update the exercise information. However, Lianides teaches a system and method for guided physical exercise based on captured sensing data from sensing devices such as smart watches wherein the system counts repetitions (updates the exercise information) when the user maintains a correct pose based on matching the user pose/movement to a target pose/movement exceeding a predetermined similarity threshold (Paragraphs 0018, 0044-0047).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Morris to incorporate the teachings of Lianides by applying the technique of counting repetitions when a movement exceeds a similarity threshold with a target movement/data of Lianides on the analysis of Morris based on the recognized activity or exercise of Morris, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to exercise monitoring systems using wearable sensors including counting a number of repetitions of an identified exercise. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Morris by coding the system to include comparing the captured movement and signal data to the expected/target data and determining a similarity wherein the repetitions would only be counted if the data exceed a similarity threshold with the expected/target data based on the analysis in order to improve Morris in the same way by removing non-exercise data and improving user performance by counting proper movements. Upon such modification, the method and system of Morris would include wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually and/or collectively, cause the electronic device to: determine that the user is maintaining the exercise posture in a state in which the similarity exceeds a threshold, and update the exercise information. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Lianides with Morris’s system and method in order to improve user performance by promoting proper form and movement and filtering out bad repetitions having incorrect posture or movement.
Conclusion
Accordingly, claims 1-20 are rejected.
Examiner notes that claims 12 and 13 are not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 in view of the prior art. Specifically, claim 12 recites the limitations “determine that the exercise posture is not being maintained in a state in which the similarity is equal to or less than a threshold, and correct the exercise-ready posture.” As discussed above, the terminology “correct the exercise-ready posture” is used to mean correcting a reference or model posture within the system rather than correcting the user’s posture through feedback. This distinction is noted as the terminology would usually be interpreted as correcting the user’s posture, but in view of the specification, the limitation is given the discussed interpretation. Shpuza and Lianides are the closest art of record with regard to this limitation as Shpuza teaches updating/scaling target data based on user parameters and differences between a target and detected data set but does not teach making the update/scaling based on a determine similarity being equal to or less than a threshold and Lianides teaches adjusting a target pose bounding box to match a user’s bounding box but again fails to teach making the adjustment based on a similarity being equal to or less than a threshold. Similarly, Canavan (US PGPub 20140278219) teaches a motion tracking system and method for counting repetitions based on valleys and peaks of a data signal wherein the classification algorithms for determining a movement can be modified and updated to capture discrepancies in captured data by allowing the user to edit the interpreted data and updating models based on the edits but fails to teach the modifications/updating are based on determining the captured data has a similarity equal to or less than a threshold. Therefore, claim 12 is not rejected in view of the prior art and claim 13 is not rejected in view of the prior art by virtue of its dependency from claim 12.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CORRELL T FRENCH whose telephone number is (571)272-8162. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30am-5pm; Alt Fri 7:30am-4pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
/CORRELL T FRENCH/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights