DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to method for using a depth camera for detecting a patient attempting to leave a furniture object without significantly more.
The claim(s) recite(s):
obtaining a merged point cloud from an image of said depth camera, said merged point cloud being indicative of a human on a furniture object;
reviewing said image to locate a within said merged point cloud a skeleton point cloud indicative of said human;
defining an edge of said merged point cloud which is not part of said skeleton point cloud, said edge being generally linear;
monitoring said merged point cloud for said skeleton point cloud to move and, by moving, break said edge;
using said break to determine that said human is attempting to leave said furniture object”
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the above steps amount to nothing more than routine data collection and/or insignificant extra-solution activity.
Additionally, the above steps could be also performed by a human using mental steps or basic critical thinking, which are types of activities that have been found by the courts to represent abstract ideas. Thus, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and fall squarely within the realm of “abstract ideas”
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional recited "depth camera" do not amount to “significantly more” since they are recited at a high level of generality and perform nothing more than well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry.
Even when viewed as a combination, the additional elements fail to transform the exception into a patent-eligible application of that exception. Thus, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (Step 2B: NO). Therefore, the claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
With regards to the instantly rejected dependent claim(s), these claims when analyzed as a whole are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an judicial exception and/or do not add significantly more to the judicial exception. Therefore, the claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 7, 10-13, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Krishnamurthy et al (Pub. No.: US 2021/0125347).
Regarding claims 1-2, 4, 7, 10, 11-13, 15-18, Krishnamurthy et al disclose a method for using a depth camera for detecting a patient attempting to leave (if the people in the tracked physical space can be interpreted as leaving the space therefore the store, emphasis added) [see 0003-0004];
the method comprising:
obtaining a merged point cloud from an image of said depth camera, said merged point cloud being indicative of a human [see 0250-0251, 0262-0263];
reviewing said image to locate a within said merged point cloud a skeleton point cloud indicative of said human [see 0245-0246, 0250-0251];
Krishnamurthy et al disclose defining an edge of said merged point cloud which is not part of said skeleton point cloud, said edge being generally linear [see 0227, 0230-0232, 0369] by disclosing a contour is generally a curve associated with an edge of a representation of a person in an image [see 0227];
monitoring said merged point cloud for said skeleton point cloud to move and, by moving, break (by entering the edge of the exclusion zone, emphasis added) said edge [see 0369-0370];
using said break to determine that said human is attempting (by moving, emphasis0) to leave said furniture object (wheelchairs) [see 0243].
Claim(s) 3, 8-9, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krishnamurthy et al (Pub. No.: US 2021/0125347) in view of Derenne et al (Pub. No.: US 2015/0109442).
Regarding claim 3, Krishnamurthy et al don't disclose wherein said furniture object comprises a bed.
Nonetheless, Derenne et al disclose wherein said furniture object comprises a bed [see 0031, 0270].
Therefore, it is obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed and would have been motivated to combine Krishnamurthy et al and Derenne et al by using a bed; to detect if the patient is getting out of bed.
Regarding claim 8, Krishnamurthy et al don't disclose a speed with which said particular portion broke said edge
Nonetheless, Derenne et al disclose wherein said deciding involves a speed with which said particular portion broke said edge [see 0009, 0116, 0270].
Therefore, it is obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed and would have been motivated to combine Krishnamurthy et al and Derenne et al by detecting a speed; for monitoring the fall.
Regarding claim 9, Krishnamurthy et al don't disclose an angle with which said particular portion broke said edge.
Nonetheless, Derenne et al disclose wherein said deciding involves an angle with which said particular portion broke said edge [see 0116, 0270].
Therefore, it is obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed and would have been motivated to combine Krishnamurthy et al and Derenne et al by using an angle; to determine the orientation.
Regarding claim 14, Krishnamurthy et al don't disclose gait analysis.
Nonetheless, Derenne et al disclose wherein said monitoring comprises gait analysis [see 0009, 0019, 0202-0206].
Therefore, it is obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed and would have been motivated to combine Krishnamurthy et al and Derenne et al by using gait analysis; accuracy purposes.
Claim(s) 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krishnamurthy et al (Pub. No.: US 2021/0125347) in view of Tran (Pub. No.: US 2016/0287166)
Regarding claim 5, Krishnamurthy et al don't disclose wherein said particular portion corresponds to a lower extremity of said human.
Nonetheless, Tran discloses wherein said particular portion corresponds to a lower extremity of said human [see 0075-0079] by disclosing the feet/shoe can be detected by finding the lowest Z point clouds close the floor in room space [see 0075]
Therefore, it is obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed and would have been motivated to combine Krishnamurthy et al and Tran by using a lower extremity of said human; for detecting a fall by tracking movements of key features very quickly.
Regarding claim 6, Krishnamurthy et al don't disclose wherein said particular portion corresponds to an upper extremity of said human.
Nonetheless, Tran discloses wherein said particular portion corresponds to an upper extremity of said human [see 0076] by disclosing the hair/hat can be detected by finding the highest Z point clouds close the floor in room space [see 0076]
Therefore, it is obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed and would have been motivated to combine Krishnamurthy et al and Tran by tracking an upper extremity of said human; for detecting a fall by tracking movements of key features very quickly.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/1/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments regarding Guo are moot since the reference doesn’t apply in the rejection.
Applicant argues Krishnamurthy does appear to contemplate the detection of both human objects and other objects (See e.g. Para [0227] cited by the Examiner). However, it expressly does this using movement of one and not the other and gives no indication that the human and non-human objects ever form a merged object. While Krishnamurthy does appear to give some contemplation of a human object breaking the line of an "exclusion zone" (See e.g. Paras [0230]-[0232]), which is defined as a boundary with a non-human object, it appears to do so only to determine that an object within an exclusion zone should not be tracked at all (that is, it should be ignored). "In these cases, the tracking system 100 may determine, based on the extent to which a potential target objects position overlaps with the auto-exclusion zone, whether the target object will be tracked" (Para [0230]). Thus, Krishnamurthy appears solely to contemplate "merger" of objects for the express purpose of ignoring the merged objects to save computational power. This is as opposed to the present claims which would be expressly analyzing a merged object, not ignoring it.
The examiner disagrees because Krishnamurthy excludes objects that are not of interest or target object [see 0230-0232].
Applicant argues Krishnamurthy as it does evaluate the separation of the merged point cloud as a human leaving a piece of furniture. While the Examiner asserts that Krishnamurthy shows a human moving from a furniture object (specifically a wheelchair - referencing Para [0243]), the citation actually indicates no such thing. The cited Para [0243] contemplates altering a height of scan to detect people in wheelchairs when viewed from above (instead of scanning over their heads). This section of Krishnamurthy gives no indication that this scan depth is done to detect that a person is attempting to leave their wheelchair, which is the element indicated in independent claim 1, it is done solely to avoid not detecting them at all and has nothing to do with the indicated claimed element.
The examiner disagrees because Krishnamurthy (if the people in the tracked physical space can be interpreted as leaving the space therefore the store, emphasis added) [see 0003-0004].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOEL F BRUTUS whose telephone number is (571)270-3847. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Sat, 11:00 AM to 7:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anne Kozak can be reached at 571-270-0552. 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.
/JOEL F BRUTUS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights