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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
In Figure 9, reference character S1 is shown, but fails to be mentioned in the Specification.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-17, 19, 23 and 25 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are:
There is no recitation of from where or by what means information (such as a plurality of feature points, an image or a sound) is acquired, captured or specified.
Further in claim 1, line 4, please clarify whether “a plurality of the feature points” is different from “a plurality of feature points” previously recited (i.e. a different plurality)
Claim 1, line 5, please clarify which plurality of feature points is being referenced.
Claim 1, line 6, please clarify whether a sound is outputted based on the detected position relationship, or if the sound is specified based on the detected position relationship. The wording of the limitation is unclear. If the sound is specified based on the detected position relationship, then please clarify what the outputting of the sound is based on or what it corresponds to within the method.
Lastly, please clarify to what or by what means the sound is output.
Claim 2, line 2, the recitation that the position relationship is detected based on a shape is indefinite. Please clarify to what the shape is referring (i.e. shape of what).
Furter in claim 2, please clarify whether the shape links the plurality of feature points, or whether the position relationship links the plurality of feature points. Also, please clarify whether the detecting or the linking is according to a predetermined reference.
Still further please clarify what the Applicant intends by “predetermined reference” in relation to the elements of the claims.
Claim 4, line 3, please clarify whether “three or more feature points” are the same as, related to, or different from either of the previous recitations of feature points.
Claim 5, line 3, the recitation of “the feature point sets” lacks antecedent basis given there is only previous recitation of one feature point set.
Claim 5, lines 5-6, are rejected for similar reasons as cited above in claim 1.
Claim 5, line 5, please clarify whether “a sound” is related to the previously recited outputted sound.
Claims 6-9 are rejected for similar reasons as outlined in claims 1 and 5.
Claim 7, line 4, and claim 8, line 3, the recitation “the position relationship detected from the person” is indefinite, given the relationship is detected indirectly from the person. Preceding claim 1, recites the positions relationship detected from feature points.
Claim 9, please clarify by what means the extraction is performed.
Claim 10, please clarify whether “a sound” is related to the previously recited sound, similar to claim 5.
Claim 12, lines 3-4, please clarify how the step of outputting image information representing the position relationship is related to the outputting of a sound based on the same position relationship.
Further, in lines 3-4, given the position relationship is previously recited as detected, please clarify whether the sample is also previously detected or separate from the detected position relationship.
Claims 13, 14, 16, 17, 19 and 25 are rejected for similar reasons as discussed above in claims 1, 2, 4, 5 and 7.
The remaining claims, not specifically addressed, depend from, and therefore include, the rejected limitations outlined above.
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 1-12 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed inventions are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-12 and 25 recite acquiring, detecting and outputting data. These limitations of acquiring, detecting and outputting, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind and includes no recitation of computer/processing components. That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, even if the claim were to recite an additional element such as – using a processor to perform the above steps, the processor would be recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of ranking information based on a determined amount of use) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element would not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
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. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the addition of an element of using a processor to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 13-17, 19 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite acquiring, detecting and outputting data.
These limitations, as drafted, are an apparatus that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance or functionality of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “at least one processor”, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “at least one processor” language, “acquiring” in the context of the claims encompass the user manually calculating or constructing elements.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – using a computer or processing circuitry. The computer and circuitry 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, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. 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. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer or circuitry amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 3, 4-7, 9 and 10, 13, 15-17, 19 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Japanese publication to Hinako (JP H08-123417 A) (English Translation provided by the Examiner) in view of the Japanese publications to Watchi (JP 2000-003171 A) and Takemura (JP 2010/176588 A) (English Translations provided by the Examiner), and further in view of that which is well-known in the art.
In terms of claims 1, 3 and 7, Hinako teaches a music playing method wherein the bending angles of the joints ("feature points") of the right shoulder, the left shoulder, the right elbow, the left elbow, the right wrist and the left wrist of a music player ("person") are each detected by respective sensors, and the tones of musical sounds are defined by combinations ("positional relationships between the feature points") of the detection results of the respective sensors (see Figure 10a and paragraph [0003]).
Hinako fails however to explicitly teach acquiring such feature points from a captured image. Motion capture means for acquiring multiple feature points on a person from captured images of the person and for detecting positional relationships between the feature points in feature point sets comprising combinations of multiple feature points are well known in the art, as can be seen in Wachi (see paragraph [0023]), and Takemura (see paragraph [0002]). Thus, it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date, to easily employ a motion capture means, which is a well-known feature, in order to detect the combinations of the bending angles of the joints of the right shoulder, the left shoulder, the right elbow, the left elbow, the right wrist and the left wrist as described by Hinako.
As for claims 4-6, Hinako fails to explicitly teach acquiring three or more feature points or multiple sets of feature points. Using feature point sets comprising combinations of three or more of the feature points, and the positional relationships between multiple feature points sets, as the combinations of the detection results of the respective sensors described in Hinako is merely a design matter that could be implemented, as appropriate and as needed, by one of ordinary in the art (see, for example, paragraphs [0019] and [0020], and fig. 1, 2, 7 and 8 of the Japanese publication to Okamoto (JP H10-97244 A) (English Translation provide by the Examiner)).
Further, providing or acquiring multiples of an element would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value (i.e. number of feature points, or number of sets) of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
As for claims 9 and 10, similar to above, Hinako fails to explicitly teach extracting a plurality of persons. Extracting multiple people from captured images and acquiring the multiple feature points from each of the people, detecting the positional relationships for each of the people, and using the positional relationships detected for each of the people to output the sounds of a different instrument for each of the people, as the combinations of the detection results of the respective sensors described in Hinako, is merely a design matter that could be implemented, as appropriate and as needed, by a person skilled in the art.
Further, as cited above, providing or acquiring multiples of an element would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value (i.e. number of persons) of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Still further, performing the steps for multiple persons, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts or steps, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
In terms of claims 13, 15-17, 19 and 25, the same reasoning applied in the rejection of method claims 1, 3-5 and 7, mutatis mutandis, applies to the subject-matter of apparatus claims 13, 15-17 and 19, and stored instruction claim 25, given the apparatus is considered inseparable from the method of using the apparatus, and the method is considered inseparable from the instructions for implementing the method.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 8, 11, 12, 14 and 23 are believed to contain allowable subject matter, and would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, and 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Other references of note, are the US patent application publications to Nishioka et al. (US 2023/0057973), Okada (US 2017/0236442) and Kim (US 2012/0007884).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see the Notice of References Cited provided by the Examiner, in particular, the US patent application publications to Nishioka et al. (US 2023/0057973), Okada (US 2017/0236442) and Kim (US 2012/0007884).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christina Schreiber whose telephone number is (571)272-4350. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-4 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, Dedei Hammond can be reached at 571-270-7938. 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.
/CHRISTINA M SCHREIBER/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
12/12/2025