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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with the amendment have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the cited art fails to disclose or suggest determining a classification of an event based on pose information and determining a probability of an occurrence of the event using a model selected from a set of models based on the classification, wherein the model is trained using historical information associated with the classification. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Tekin teaches a plurality of machine learning models for different scenarios and a switch 506 that selects between the models such that the model associated with the applicable scenario is used (pars. 51-52 and FIG. 5). Tekin further teaches training a separate model for each scenario using labelled pose training data associated with that scenario (pars. 55-58 and FIG. 6, “a separate trained machine learning model 610, 612, 614 for each scenario”), the selected model computing action class probabilities (par. 63).
Lucey teaches predictors trained on historical play data with respect to a classification metric associated with a particular event, e.g., expected goal value for scoring, probability of making a pass and probability of shooting (pars. 44-45), and learning a dictionary of plays predictive of a particular task such as goal scoring (pars. 49-50).
Therefore, the combination of Lucey and Tekin teach the new amendments.
See the final rejection below.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-16, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Power (20200276474) in further view of Tekin (20220230079) in further view of Lucey (20180032858).
Regarding claim 1, Power teaches a data processing apparatus comprising circuitry configured to (pars. 28-33):
obtain an image of a person participating in a sport (par. 34);
determine, using the image, pose information indicative of a pose of the person (pars. 42 and 58);
Tekin teaches determine a classification of an event of the sport based on the pose information determined, wherein the event of the sport is one of a scoring of a point in the sport or a pass to another person (pars. 4 and 55, labeling possible action labels);
Tekin teaches determine, using a model selected from a set of models based on the classification of the event of the sport, a probability of the occurrence of the event of the sport (pars. 51-52 and FIG. 5, a plurality of machine learning models for different scenarios and a switch 506 that selects between the models; par. 63, the selected model computes action class probabilities); and
Tekin teaches wherein the model is trained using historical information associated with the classification (pars. 55-58 and FIG. 6, a separate model is trained for each scenario using labelled training data associated with that scenario).
It would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in Power the ability to recognize an action using a model selected from a set of models as taught by Tekin. The reason is to recognize a range of actions whilst still having good performance (par. 52 of Tekin).
Lucey teaches determine a probability of the occurrence of the event of the sport using historical information indicative of a relationship between pose information and a probability of an occurrence of the event of the sport (pars. 3-4 and 44-45, historical plays in a database and classification metrics such as expected goal value, probability of making a pass and probability of shooting; pars. 49-50, a dictionary of plays predictive of a particular task such as goal scoring); and
output the determined probability of the occurrence of the event of the sport (par. 4).
It would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in Power and Tekin the ability to train the models using historical plays in a database associated with the classified event as taught by Lucey. The reason is to improve prediction using the historical data most relevant to the classified event.
Regarding claim 2, see par. 42 of Power, hip orientation, shoulder alignment and angles.
Regarding claim 3, see par. 53 of Power, foot height for volley.
Regarding claim 4, see par. 42 of Power, goalkeeper.
Regarding claim 5, see par. 58 of Power.
Regarding claim 7, see par. 41.
Regarding claim 8, Lucey teaches wherein the event is a successful pass from the person to another person participating in the football match (see par. 44 of Lucey).
Regarding claim 9, see pars. 44-48 of Lucey, playbook.
Regarding claim 10, see par. 63 of Lucey.
Regarding claim 11, see par. 58 of Lucey.
Regarding claims 12-16, see the rejection of claims 1-5.
Regarding claim 18, see the rejection of claim 7.
Regarding claim 20, see the rejection of claim 1.
Claim(s) 6 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Power in view of Tekin, in view of Lucey and in further view of Hermansen (20200023235).
Regarding claim 6, Power teaches determining, using the pose information in the rejection of claim 1 and Power teaches scoring probability in pars. 41-43.
Hermansen teaches an amount by which a goal area is obscured from a position on a football pitch (pars. 45-46 and 82-84); and
determining the probability of the occurrence of the event of the sport using the determined proportion of the goal area (pars. 83-86, kick optimization)
It would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in Power, Tekin and Lucey the ability to take different factors like occlusion into account as taught by Hermansen. The reason is to model based on different conditions.
Regarding claim 17, see the rejection of claim 6.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HADI AKHAVANNIK whose telephone number is (571)272-8622. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM - 5 PM Monday to Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Henok Shiferaw can be reached at (571) 272-4637. 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.
/HADI AKHAVANNIK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2676
Prosecution Insights