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 .
Claims 1-16 are pending.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 09/11/2023 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information referred to therein has been considered by the examiner.
Title
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. See MPEP 606.01 [R-2]
Claim interpretation - 35 USC § 112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: the various units in claims 1, 7 and 14 (see Fig. 1 and supporting disclosure).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “acquire a distance image indicating a distance to a target object; and a processing unit configured to divide pixels included in the distance image into blocks according to a distance relationship”.
This section is confusing because: (a) how can the distance image, containing multiple pixels, indicates a single distance to the target object? (b) where is the distance to the target object measured from, the imaging unit, or some other reference point? (c) is the distance relationship referring to relationship between pixels, blocks, or something else?
Claim 1 then recites “detect a state of the target object by comparing ratios of pixels included in the respective blocks”.
This section is confusing because it is not clear what is meant by “ratios of pixels”, is there one ratio per block, multiple ratios per block, ratio between different blocks? How can a block of the distance image contain ratios of pixels? Please clarify.
Claims 8, 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the same reasons as stated above.
In addition,
claims 8, 11 and 14 each recites the limitation of acquiring “a distance image in time sequence”. How can a single image be “in time sequence”?
claims 8 and 12 each recites the limitation “at least each state of the target object”, which is confusing because only one “state of the target object” has been defined earlier.
claims 2, 4-5, 9-10, 13 and 15-16 each recites “previous and following” images/areas/volumes/coordinates. It is not clear if/how they are related to the distant image defined in the independent claims they depend from (i.e., claims 1, 8, 11 or 14)
Claim(s) not mentioned specifically is/are dependent on indefinite antecedent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by ZHAO et al. (hereafter referred to as “ZHAO”, US 2015/0055828).
Regarding claim 1, ZHAO discloses a detection system (Figs. 1&2) comprising:
an imaging unit configured to acquire a distance image indicating a distance to a target object (Fig. 1, depth camera 101. Fig. 2, step S201, pg. [0031] “acquiring at least two depth image frames having depth information, which are obtained by continuously taking images of a moving object”); and
a processing unit (Fig. 1, computer 102) configured to divide pixels included in the distance image into blocks according to a distance relationship (pg. [0033] “a plurality of depth areas, which are formed by arranging the continuous depths in an ascending order in each block, and dividing (equally or unequally) the blocks into a plurality of areas”), and detect a state of the target object by comparing ratios of pixels included in the respective blocks (Fig. 2, steps S202 and S203, detect hand movement of the person. Pg. [0040]-[0041], the movement level Cj is based on ratios of pixels Sji/Tji) .
Regarding claim 2, ZHAO discloses the detection system according to claim 1, wherein the processing unit compares pixels included in previous and following distance images, and detects a state variation of the target object from a difference between the pixels (Fig. 2, steps S202 and S203, pg. [0031] “acquiring at least two depth image frames having depth information, which are obtained by continuously taking images of a moving object … The difference between numbers of pixels positioned in respective different depth areas in each of the blocks in the present depth image frame, and numbers of pixels positioned in respective different depth areas in each of the corresponding blocks in each past depth image frame, are calculated (step S202). Based on the calculated difference, a moving block in the present depth image frame is detected, and the detected moving object is constituted (step S203)”).
Regarding claim 3, ZHAO discloses the detection system according to claim 1, wherein the processing unit compares the pixels between frames of the distance image (see analysis of claim 2, Fig. 2, step S202, pg. [0031]).
Regarding claim 4, ZHAO discloses the detection system according to claim 1, wherein the processing unit calculates previous and following virtual areas (pg. [0033] “the depth areas may be divided in units of meters … it is assumed that there are an N number of past depth image frames … the detection of the moving object is usually started from the second frame”) and/or previous and following virtual volumes of the target object by using the pixels included in the blocks, and detects a state variation of the target object by comparing the previous and following virtual areas (Fig. 2, step S202, pg. [0031]) or comparing the previous and following virtual volumes.
Regarding claim 5, ZHAO discloses the detection system according to claim 1, wherein the processing unit compares previous and following coordinates of pixels included in a plurality of the distance images, virtual area images, or virtual volume images, and detects a state variation of the target object from a difference between the previous and following coordinates (Fig. 2, steps S202 and S203, see analysis of claim 2, and more detailed disclosure in pg. [0034]-[0037]).
Regarding claim 6, ZHAO discloses the detection system according to claim 5, wherein the coordinates include any of a singular point, a centroid point, and a vertex included in the distance images, the virtual area images, or the virtual volume images (Figs. 4A&4B).
Regarding claim 7, ZHAO discloses the detection system according to claim 1, further comprising an information presentation unit configured to present one or more of the distance image, a virtual area, a virtual volume, and state information indicating the state of the target object (Fig. 1 and pg. [0029] “applications of interactions between a human and a computer”).
Regarding claim 8, ZHAO discloses a detection method comprising: acquiring, by an imaging unit, a distance image in time sequence, the distance image indicating a distance to a target object; detecting, by the processing unit, a state of the target object by dividing pixels included in the distance image into blocks according to a distance relationship and comparing a ratio of pixels included in the respective blocks (see analysis of claim 1); and calculating a virtual area or a virtual volume for each block for at least each state of the target object by using the pixels included in the respective blocks (see analysis of claim 4. pg. [0033] “the depth areas may be divided in units of meters).
Claims 9-16 have been analyzed and are rejected for the same reasons as outlined above in the rejection of claims 2, 4, 1, 8, 2, 1, 2 and 4, respectively. ZHAO’s system is computer-based. Processor(s) and storage(s) are the main building blocks of a computer system.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LI LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-5363. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:00AM-4:30PM, EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Emily Terrell can be reached on (571)270-3717. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LI LIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2666