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 .
The examiner acknowledges receipt of remarks/amendments dated January 12, 2026 in which, the applicants amended claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 29 and 30, and added claim 57.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 29 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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 13-14, 17, 19, 20-22, 24-27, 29-30 and 58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Leverage of Limb Detection in Pose Estimation for Vulnerable Road Users” by Wang et al. (hereinafter ‘Wang’) in view of US PgPub. No. 2022/0108468 by Nakamura et al. (hereinafter ‘Nakamura’).
In regards to claim 1, Wang teaches a computer-implemented method for determining an angle in an object of interest, the method comprising: (a) obtaining an image or a video of the object of interest; (See Wang Section I, Wang teaches obtaining video data.)
(b) generating a plurality of key point heatmaps and a plurality of segment heatmaps from the image or the video; (See Wang Figure 2, Wang teaches keypoint heatmaps and Limb (i.e., segment) heatmaps.)
(c) blending at least one of the plurality of key point heatmaps with at least one of the plurality of segment heatmaps to generate at least one blended heatmap, (See Wang Section III(c), Wang teaches blending keypoint and limb heatmaps.)
(d) extracting features from the at least one blended heatmap; and (e) determining the angle in the object of interest by calculating an angle formed by the extracted features. (See Wang Section III(c) and Figure 2, Wang teaches determining pose of the limbs of the person.)
However, Wang does not expressly teach wherein the extracted features comprise segments and wherein the angle is formed by the extracted segments.
Nakamura teaches wherein the extracted features comprise segments and wherein the angle is formed by the extracted segments. (See Nakamura paragraph [0101]-[0103], Nakamura teaches determining joint position candidate regions and using the candidates to determine joint angle.)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Wang to include the angle calculating method of Nakamura. The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following findings: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Wang in this manner because/in order to determine joint motion with higher accuracy.
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Wang with Nakamura to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
In regards to claim 2, Wang and Nakamura teach all the limitations of claim 1. Wang also teaches wherein the extracted features comprise key points extracted from the at least one blended heatmap, wherein the angle formed by the extracted key points is defined by at least two extracted segments formed by connecting the extracted key points. (See Wang Section III(c), Wang teaches keypoints from blended heatmaps).
In regards to claim 4, Wang and Nakamura teach all the limitations of claim 1. Wang also teaches wherein the extracted features comprise segments extracted from the at least one blended heatmap, wherein the angle formed by the extracted segments. (See Wang Section III(c), Wang teaches blended heatmaps.)
In regards to claim 5, Wang and Nakamura teach all the limitations of claim 1. Wang also teaches wherein the extracted segment extracted using a line detection method. (See Wang Figure 2, Wang teaches determining joint lines.)
In regards to claim 7, Wang and Nakamura teach all the limitations of claim 1. Wang also teaches wherein the object of interest comprises a joint of a subject. (See Wang Figure 3).
In regards to claim 13, Wang and Nakamura teach all the limitations of claim 1. Wang also teaches wherein generating the plurality of key point heatmaps and the plurality of segment heatmaps in step (b) uses a deep neural network. (See Wang Figure 2, Wang teaches neural network architecture for keypoint detection.)
In regards to claim 14, Wang and Nakamura teach all the limitations of claim 13. Wang also teaches wherein the deep neural network comprises convolutional networks. (See Wang Figure 2).
In regards to claim 17, Wang and Nakamura teach all the limitations of claim 1. Wang also teaches wherein the plurality of key point heatmaps represents landmarks on the image or the video of the object of interest. (See Wang Section III(b), Wang teaches determining 13 keypoints.)
In regards to claim 19, Wang and Nakamura teach all the limitations of claim 1. Wang also teaches wherein the plurality of segment heatmaps represents segments along a body part adjacent to a joint. (See Wang Section III(b), Wang teaches 13 limbs.)
In regards to claim 20, Wang and Nakamura teach all the limitations of claim 17. Wang also teaches wherein one of the segments connects at least two of the landmarks along a body part adjacent to a joint. (See Wang Section III(c)).
In regards to claim 21, Wang and Nakamura teach all the limitations of claim 13. Wang also teaches wherein step (b) further comprises generating a combined negative heatmap from the image or the video for training the deep neural network. (See Wang Figure 2).
In regards to claim 22, Wang and Nakamura teach all the limitations of claim 1. Wang also teaches wherein step (c) blends the at least one of the plurality of key point heatmaps that represents a key point spatially adjacent to a segment represented by the at least one of the plurality of segment heatmaps. (See Wang Section III(c), Wang teaches blending keypoint and limb heatmaps).
In regards to claim 24, Wang and Nakamura teach all the limitations of claim 1. Wang also teaches wherein blending provides improved handling of a noisy heatmap or a missing heatmap. (See Wang Section III(c).)
In regards to claim 25, Wang and Nakamura teach all the limitations of claim 2. Wang also teaches wherein extracting the key points in step (d) uses at least one of non-maximum suppression, blob detection, or heatmap sampling. (See Wang Section III(b) and (c).).
In regards to claim 26, Wang and Nakamura teach all the limitations of claim 2. Wang also teaches wherein extracting the key points comprises selecting coordinates with highest pixel intensity in the at least one blended heatmap. (See Wang Section III(c)).
In regards to claim 27, Wang and Nakamura teach all the limitations of claim 2. Wang also teaches wherein at least three key points are extracted. (See Wang Section III(b), Wang teaches 13 keypoints.)
Claims 29-30 recite limitations that are similar to that of claims 1-2, respectively. Therefore, claims 29-30 are rejected similarly as claims 1-2, respectively.
In regards to claim 58, Wang and Nakamura teach all the limitations of claim 17. Wang also teaches wherein the landmarks comprise a joint and at least one body part adjacent to the joint. (See Wang Section III(b), Wang teaches determining 13 keypoints and 13 limbs.)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In regards to claim 6, the prior art does not teach or suggest “wherein the extracted segment extracted using Hough transform.”
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 UTPAL D SHAH whose telephone number is (571)272-5729. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:30-5:30.
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, Vu Le can be reached at (571) 272-7332. 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.
/UTPAL D SHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2668
Prosecution Insights