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 § 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, 8-9, 11-13, 20 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito (US 20200364919) in view of O’Donncha (US 20210406738).
Regarding claim 13, Saito teaches a system comprising:
A storage configured to store instructions (Paragraph 116, one or more instructions stored on a computer-readable storage medium);
A processor configured to execute the instructions (Paragraph 116, one or more instructions stored on a computer-readable storage medium and executable by processors) and cause the processor to:
(Note: Saito teaches: “For example, for two input joint positions with intermediate structural members surrounding a medial joint, two IK solutions generally exist for the position of the medial joint. The character animation system can determine each of these IK solutions and blend them to determine a modified position located between IK solutions (Paragraph 19). The examples given in Saito related to the elbow joint also apply to the shoulder joint.)
Determine a shoulder inversion factor based on the first shoulder position (Paragraph 53, the conventional system generates the animated character 202 with an elbow position in an awkward, unnatural position based on a shoulder position), wherein the shoulder inversion factor comprises a value that identifies an impingement between the shoulder and an arm and indicates mobility of the shoulder (Paragraph 102, the character animation system may impose a first shoulder angle limit for a first region and a second shoulder angle limit for a second region; Paragraph 103, the shoulder angle limits and the transition angles are automatically determined based on the animated character, user history, or other factors)
Upon determining the shoulder inversion factor exceeds a threshold, determine a second shoulder position based on the shoulder inversion factor (Paragraph 3, a second IK solution of a second elbow position; Paragraph 55, In response to determining that the shoulder angle satisfies (e.g., falls below or exceeds) a shoulder angle limit, the character animation system 102 selects a bending direction), wherein the second shoulder position comprises an untracked shoulder position determined using a computational method based on one or more proportions associated with the avatar (Paragraph 19, the character animation system can generate IK solutions reflecting different elbow positions that satisfy constraints, such as upper arm length, forearm length, shoulder position, and wrist position);
Determine a third shoulder position by blending the first shoulder position and the second shoulder position based on the shoulder inversion factor (Paragraph 80, the character animation system 102 blends elbow positions by starting from a first elbow position (of a first IK solution) and adding a weighted amount of the distance between the first elbow position and the second elbow positions); and
Render the avatar with the shoulder located at the third shoulder position (Paragraph 23, the character animation system can render a representation of the animated character in a pose defined by the modified elbow position).
While Saito fails to disclose the following, O’Donncha teaches:
Receive sensor data from an arm motion sensor attached to a wearer (Paragraph 16, require a physical sensor to be connected to the user's body);
Determine a first shoulder position of a shoulder of an avatar, wherein the first shoulder position comprises a tracked shoulder position based on the sensor data (Paragraph 16, some current systems provide a “physical avatar” that guides personal movement when undertaking exercises. The physical avatar is simply a set of fixed points based on the position of the user's head, shoulders, knees, toes, etc. Some systems focus on monitoring the velocity of a particular piece of exercise equipment as it relates to a particular training methodology, while others require a physical sensor to be connected to the user's body);
O’Donncha and Saito are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are the in the same of inverse kinematics. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Saito to incorporate the teachings of O’Donncha and use sensor data from an arm motion sensor to determine a tracked shoulder position. Doing so would allow for real-time renderings of the physical body in the virtual avatar.
Method claim 1 corresponds to system claim 13. Therefore, claim 1 is rejected for the same reasons as used above.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Saito and O’Donncha teaches the system of claim 13, wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions and cause the processor to:
Determine a second shoulder position based on a maximum shoulder inversion factor (Saito, Paragraph 55, identifies a shoulder angle and determines that the shoulder angle falls below a shoulder angle limit. In response to determining that the shoulder angle satisfies (e.g., falls below or exceeds) a shoulder angle limit, the character animation system 102 selects a bending direction (e.g., an IK solution corresponding to an inward/downward bending direction)).
Method claim 8 corresponds to system claim 20. Therefore, claim 8 is rejected for the same reasons as used above.
Regarding claim 9, Saito teaches a method comprising:
Determining an angle of rotation of an arm of the wearer with respect to a reference point (Paragraph 98, a shoulder angle of an animated character may proceed through the blending region);
Upon determining the angle of rotation is greater than a first threshold, determining a shoulder inversion factor based on a position of the arm with respect to a shoulder (Paragraph 102, the character animation system may impose a first shoulder angle limit for a first region and a second shoulder angle limit for a second region), wherein the shoulder inversion factor identifies an impingement between the shoulder and an arm and indicates mobility of the shoulder (Paragraph 102, the character animation system may impose a first shoulder angle limit for a first region and a second shoulder angle limit for a second region; Paragraph 103, the shoulder angle limits and the transition angles are automatically determined based on the animated character, user history, or other factors);
Determining a shoulder rotation based on the shoulder inversion factor (Paragraph 104, the character animation system 102 may impose a variety of shoulder angle limits to create continuity, realism, and/or character-specific arm movement as an animated character rotates through a full 360 degree range of motion of the shoulder joint), wherein determining the shoulder rotation comprises determining, based on the shoulder inversion factor, that a shoulder joint is displaced due to shoulder movement (Paragraph 33, The character animation system can simulate movement by modifying the joint position (and the position of connecting structural members); Abstract, methods for intelligently blending inverse kinematic (IK) solutions to more naturally depict joint positioning and/or movement of digital animated characters);
Modifying the angle of rotation of the arm based on the shoulder rotation (Paragraph 104, the character animation system 102 may impose a variety of shoulder angle limits to create continuity, realism, and/or character-specific arm movement as an animated character rotates through a full 360 degree range of motion of the shoulder joint), wherein modifying the angle of rotation comprises adding movement of the shoulder joint to amplify rotation of the arm (Paragraph 70, as the shoulder angle limit 318 increases, the character animation system 102 may blend IK solutions at higher shoulder angles (e.g., at more obtuse shoulder angles relative to the reference plane 316)); and
Rendering an avatar with the shoulder rotation (Paragraph 104, the character animation system 102 may impose a variety of shoulder angle limits to create continuity, realism, and/or character-specific arm movement as an animated character rotates through a full 360 degree range of motion of the shoulder joint).
While Saito fails to disclose the following, O’Donncha teaches:
Receiving sensor data from an arm tracker attached to a wearer (Paragraph 16, require a physical sensor to be connected to the user's body);
O’Donncha and Saito are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are the in the same of inverse kinematics. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Saito to incorporate the teachings of O’Donncha and use sensor data from an arm motion sensor to determine a tracked shoulder position. Doing so would allow for real-time renderings of the physical body in the virtual avatar.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Saito and O’Donncha teaches the method of claim 9, wherein the shoulder inversion factor is greater than a second threshold, computing a location of the shoulder based on a position of the elbow (Saito, Paragraph 41, a shoulder angle limit can include a limit to the shoulder angle where a first elbow bending direction changes to a second elbow direction; Paragraph 102, the character animation system may impose a first shoulder angle limit for a first region and a second shoulder angle limit for a second region).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Saito and O’Donncha teaches the method of claim 9, wherein the shoulder rotation comprises circumferential movement of a shoulder joint with respect to a fixed point (Saito, Paragraph 104, an animated character rotates through a full 360 degree range of motion of the shoulder joint).
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Saito and O’Donncha teaches the method of claim 1, wherein determining the second shoulder position comprises determining the untracked shoulder position based on a shoulder width of the avatar (Saito, Paragraph 72, the character animation system 102 utilizes pre-defined values, historical selections, and/or characteristics of an animated character (e.g., character dimensions, height, width, or arm length) to determine the blending region 322, the shoulder angle limit 318, the first transition angle 320a, and/or the second transition angle 320b). Note: Saito teaches the untracked shoulder position and determining angle of rotation based on characteristics of the avatar. This can be applied to determining shoulder position based on characteristics of the avatar.
Claims 4-5 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Saito in view of O’Donncha as applied to claims 1, 8-9, 11-13, 20 and 24 and further in view of Giusti (US 20140045593).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Saito and O’Donncha teaches the system of claim 13. While the combination fails to disclose the following, Giusti teaches:
Determine a first vector from a shoulder root point to an elbow position (Figure 9A, vector 902);
Determine a second vector from the elbow position to a target point associated with the sensor data (Figure 9A, vector 904);
Determine a third vector based on the first vector and the second vector (Figure 9A, vector 906); and
Determine the shoulder inversion factor (Paragraph 44, first angle 910 exceeding the first angle threshold may indicate that the lower arm is bent in relation to the adjacent upper arm) based on the third vector with respect to a reference vector (Figure 9A, vector 910).
Giusti and the combination of Saito and O’Donncha are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of inverse kinematics. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Saito and O’Donncha to incorporate the teachings of Giusti and determine a shoulder inversion factor based on a first vector from shoulder to elbow, a second vector from elbow to a target position, a third vector based on the first vector and second vector, and a shoulder inversion factor based on the third vector with respect to a reference vector. Doing so would allow for easily storing and calculating shoulder and elbow position and rotation.
Method claim 4 corresponds to system claim 16. Therefore, claim 4 is rejected for the same reasons as used above.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Saito, O’Donncha, and Giusti teaches the system of claim 16. While the combination as presented previously fails to disclose the following, Giusti further teaches:
Wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions and cause the processor to: compute the shoulder inversion factor based on a dot product of the third vector and the reference vector, wherein the reference vector comprises a chest vector (Paragraph 49, a determination of an orientation of left wrist virtual point 320 begins with calculating a vector dot product of a vector 1001 and vector 1003, where vector 1001 is equal to vector 902, and vector 1003 is equal to vector 904, both described above and illustrated in FIG. 9A. If an angle 1005 determined by this dot product exceeds a threshold angle). Note: the orientation of the shoulder, and further the shoulder inversion factor, can be determined with the same method when taking the dot product of a reference vector and the chest vector (Fig A, vector 904).
Giusti and the combination of Saito and O’Donncha are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of inverse kinematics. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Saito and O’Donncha to incorporate the teachings of Giusti and compute the shoulder inversion factor based on a dot product of a chest vector and reference vector. Doing so would allow for determining a value for shoulder impingement with respect to the body.
Method claim 5 corresponds to system claim 17. Therefore, claim 5 is rejected for the same reasons as used above.
Claims 6-7, 18-19 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Saito in view of O’Donncha as applied to claims 1, 8-9, 11-13, 20 and 24 and further in view of Muhammad (US 11907423).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Saito and O’Donncha teaches the system of claim 13. While the combination fails to disclose the following, Muhammad teaches:
Wherein the arm motion sensor comprises a single arm motion sensor (Column 8, Lines 5-8, For instance, movement data obtained by a single movement sensor positioned on the user (e.g., on the user's wrist or arm) may be provided as input data to a trained inference model).
Muhammad and the combination of Saito and O’Donncha are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are the in the same of inverse kinematics. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Saito and O’Donncha to incorporate the teachings of Muhammad and use sensor data from an arm motion sensor to determine a shoulder position. Doing so would allow for real-time renderings of the physical body in the virtual avatar.
Method claim 6 corresponds to system claim 18. Therefore, claim 6 is rejected for the same reasons as used above.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Saito and O’Donncha teaches the system of claim 13. While the combination fails to disclose the following, Muhammad teaches:
Wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions and cause the processor to: determine an elbow position associated with an arm of the avatar based on the sensor data (Muhammad, Column 8, Lines 11-14, For example, the output data may be used to determine the position and/or the orientation of the user's upper arm segment and lower arm segment, which are connected by an elbow joint); and
Wherein the first shoulder position of the avatar is determined based on the elbow position (Muhammad, Column 8, Lines 11-14, For example, the output data may be used to determine the position and/or the orientation of the user's upper arm segment and lower arm segment, which are connected by an elbow joint).
Muhammad and the combination of Saito and O’Donncha are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are the in the same of inverse kinematics. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Saito and O’Donncha to incorporate the teachings of Muhammad and use sensor data from an arm motion sensor to determine a shoulder position based on elbow position. Doing so would allow for real-time renderings of the physical body in the virtual avatar.
Method claim 7 corresponds to system claim 19. Therefore, claim 7 is rejected for the same reasons as used above.
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Saito and O’Donncha teaches the system of claim 13. While the combination fails to disclose the following, Muhammad teaches:
Wherein determining the first shoulder position comprises determining the first shoulder position using an embedded offset determined during calibration of the arm motion sensor (Column 11, Lines 32-40, one or more IMU(s) may be used to sense data about movement of the part of the user's body on which the IMU(s) is or are attached, and information derived from the sensed IMU data (e.g., position and/or orientation information) may be tracked as the user moves over time. For example, one or more IMU(s) may be used to track movements of portions (e.g., arms, legs) of the user's body proximal to the user's torso relative to the IMU(s) as the user moves over time).
Muhammad and the combination of Saito and O’Donncha are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are the in the same of inverse kinematics. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Saito and O’Donncha to incorporate the teachings of Muhammad and calibration the arm motion sensor and determine an offset to a desired body position. Doing so would allow for accurately determining the position of the desired body position.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Saito in view of O’Donncha as applied to claims 1, 8-9, 11-13, 20 and 24 and further in view of Winterbach (US 20200335222).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Saito and O’Donncha teaches the method of claim 9. While the combination fails to disclose the following, Winterbach teaches:
Wherein the shoulder rotation comprises at least one of abduction, adduction, flexion, or extension of the arm (Paragraph 25, one or more of the devices 102-106 may be used to capture range of motion data or movement data, such as shoulder movement or range of motion data (e.g., adduction/abduction, flexion/extension, internal/external rotation)).
Winterbach and the combination of Saito and O’Donncha are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of kinematics. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Saito and O’Donncha to incorporate the teachings of Winterbach and use a sensor to detect shoulder abduction, adduction, flexion, or extension. Doing so would allow for easily calculating unnatural angles of shoulder rotation.
Claims 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Saito in view of O’Donncha as applied to claims 1, 8-9, 11-13, 20 and 24 and further in view of Kim (WO 2017090985).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Saito and O’Donncha teaches the method of claim 9. While the combination fails to disclose the following, Kim teaches:
Wherein the shoulder rotation comprises radial movement of a shoulder joint based on an initial fixed point associated with a clavicle (Page 4, Paragraph 4, An acromioclavicular joint at the outer end of the clavicle is between the clavicle and the scapula. In the posterior-lateral surface of the thorax, there is a scapulothoracic joint, which is more an anatomical joint than a contact surface between two bones. Between the scapula and humerus, there is the longest, maneuverable glenohumeral joint in the shoulder complex. Originally, "shoulder movement" refers to the combined movement of the upper arm and the joint and the shoulder blade joint. In the present invention, the movement of the shoulder blade joint will be described as the movement of the thoracic and acromioclavicular joints). Note: Saito teaches radial movement of a shoulder joint.
Kim and the combination of Saito and O’Donncha are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of kinematics. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Saito and O’Donncha to incorporate the teachings of Kim and use the clavicle as an initial fixed point of the shoulder joint. Doing so would allow for using a known anatomically accurate point to base shoulder movement.
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Saito and O’Donncha teaches the method of claim 9. While the combination fails to disclose the following, Kim teaches:
Wherein determining the shoulder inversion factor comprises clamping the shoulder inversion factor to a maximum value corresponding to a maximum rotation range of a humerus within a shoulder joint associated with the shoulder (Page 4, Paragraph 4, Between the scapula and humerus, there is the longest, maneuverable glenohumeral joint in the shoulder complex), and wherein determining the second shoulder position comprises determining the second shoulder position based on rotation of a clavicle that moves the shoulder joint when the shoulder inversion factor is clamped to the maximum value (Page 4, Paragraph 8, In the method of generating shoulder motion information of a 3D character according to an embodiment of the present invention, a shoulder movement, that is, a scapula joint, acromioclavicular joint, a brachial arm and a joint, is generated with respect to an arbitrary elevation angle (θ) and the elevation angle (φ). As a method, see Ludewig et al. A total of nine rotational angle information (skeleton, attenuation, brachial and joint x, y, z-axis rotations) obtained at every elevation (5 °) with respect to the three elevation angles (0 °, 40 °, 90 °) obtained in Value is used to generate shoulder motion information by applying double sphere interpolation). Note: Kim teaches determining shoulder position at different elevation angles. Saito teaches determining the shoulder inversion factor.
Kim and the combination of Saito and O’Donncha are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of kinematics. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Saito and O’Donncha to incorporate the teachings of Kim and determining shoulder inversion factor based on a maximum rotation of a humerus and determining shoulder position based on rotation of a clavicle. Doing so would allow for determining natural shoulder positions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 9, and 13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding claims 1 and 13, Saito teaches an untracked shoulder position and O’Donncha teaches a tracked shoulder position. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine these teachings to blend both a tracked shoulder position and untracked shoulder position to create an avatar.
Regarding claim 9, Saito teaches determining the shoulder rotation comprises determining, based on the shoulder inversion factor, that a shoulder joint is displaced due to shoulder movement. Saito teaches determining the shoulder inversion factor and detecting unnatural joint positions during movement. This teaching can be used to determine that a joint has been displaced during movement. Additionally, Saito teaches modifying the angle of rotation comprises adding movement of the shoulder joint to amplify rotation of the arm. Saito teaches increasing the angle of the shoulder which would amplify the rotation of the arm.
Applicant argues that the Office has not given sufficient reason to combine Saito and Muhammad to teach the prior claims. However, Saito and O’Donncha can be combined to teach these claims. Saito teaches IK blending solutions, and O’Donncha teaches using a physical arm sensor to detect joint movement and rotation along with modifying an avatar based on the sensor data. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine these teachings to use data from a sensor to perform IK blending.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SNIGDHA SINHA whose telephone number is (571)272-6618. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 12pm-8pm.
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, Jason Chan can be reached at 571-272-3022. 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.
/SNIGDHA SINHA/Examiner, Art Unit 2619
/JASON CHAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2619
Prosecution Insights