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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 09/05/2025 in response to the Non-Final Office Action mailed 06/23/2025 has been entered.
Claims 1-11 are currently pending in U.S. Patent Application No. 18/269,879 and an Office action on the merits follows.
Response to 35 USC § 101 Rejections
Applicant's arguments filed 09/05/2025, and concerning eligibility analysis, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Claim 11 has been amended such that it is no longer directed to a program per se and therefore passes Step 1 (proceeding to Prong One of Step 2A). Eligibility analysis for the case of claim 11 follows that of corresponding method claim 10 and apparatus claim 1 accordingly. Claim 10 is representative.
Applicant’s remarks at page 9-10 cite the 2019 PEG with reference to the enumerated Abstract Idea groupings therein. These same groupings are relied upon in the 2024 PEG, and the analysis previously presented in the Non-Final Office Action similarly relies upon only those (c) mental processes and/or (a) mathematical concepts groupings. Examiner’s analysis does not rely on any ‘Tentative Abstract Idea’ as described in MPEP 2106.04(a)(3). Similarly, the 2024 PEG does not introduce any additional/new groupings, but relies only upon those previously established. The most recent, 2024 guidance makes clear that a claim can be ‘directed to’ an Abstract Idea when analyzed at Prong One of 2A, with individual limitations drawn to one or more of the aforementioned groupings, and that there is no requirement that the analysis rely on solely one of said groupings. With reference to the July 17, 2024 PEG Examples (previously linked at Page 5 of the Non-Final), at page 8, Example 47 claim 2 Step 2A, Prong One analysis:
“Under such circumstances, however, the Supreme Court has treated such claims in the same manner as claims reciting a single judicial exception. Id. (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)). Here, steps (b), (d), and (e) fall within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas, and steps (b) and (c) fall within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas. Limitations (b)-(e) are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).”
At page 23, Example 48 claim 2 Step 2A, Prong One analysis:
“As discussed above, steps (b), (c), and (e) of claim 2 recite mathematical concepts and step (d) recites a mental process. An examiner should identify the claim as reciting both a mental process and a mathematical concept for Step 2A, Prong One, and consider the limitations (b)-(e) together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. See MPEP 2106.04, subsection II.B.”
As has been made clear in the most recent guidance, the mere presence of ‘additional elements’ is not sufficient for a streamlined analysis circumventing Prong Two. See e.g. Example 47 claim 2 Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis. Applicant’s remarks cite/emphasize that “Claims that do not recite matter that falls within the above-enumerated groups of abstract ideas should not be treated as reciting abstract ideas”, as support for what appears to be an argument that the mere presence of ‘additional elements’ favors an eligible outcome/conclusion at Prong One (following ‘No’ to ‘Pathway B’ from Revised (2019) 2A Prong One, MPEP 2106.04). This would not be a proper analysis as it would consider any ‘additional element(s)’ in a vacuum independent of the exception (and not the claim as a whole). The Alice/Mayo two-step test’s roots in preemption concern identifying if the ‘additional elements’ outweigh (significantly more) the exception (which is why no limitations to include those falling on the side of the exception, or ‘additional elements’, are considered in a vacuum at 2A Prong Two, and 2B).
Applicant’s remarks at page 12, approach a Prong Two analysis with recognition of the manner in which elements indicative of integration include, MPEP 2106.04(d):
• An improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a);
However these remarks stop short of identifying what recited ‘additional elements’ serve to specifically realize the improvement, what that improvement to technology is, and how they are indeed ‘additional elements’ (the latter being the most important). This is required because the improvement cannot be to, or realized by the exception. Any purported improvement that is realized by e.g. calculating/determining one or more reference and/or one or more relative position(s), would at best be an improvement to the exception itself (MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) – “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements. See the discussion of Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187 and 191-92, 209 USPQ 1, 10 (1981)) in subsection II, below”).
As a clarifying note, 'functioning of a computer' does not include using a computer as a tool to implement broad/generic functionally recited operations (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) but instead functions/operations integral to the way computers typically operate (e.g. memory/database read/write operations for the case of Enfish, and virus scanning for the case of Finjan). Examiner would assert the instant claims are not analogous to those in either of Enfish or Finjan. The eligibility analysis provided does not oversimplify the claims, but instead relies upon proper interpretation as required by MPEP 2173.01 and/or 2111.01 where appropriate. Even a generous reading (close to importing limitations from the specification) minimally requires determining (optionally mentally/visually) two or more non-specific positions for a plurality of subjects based on the ‘use’ of a trained model obtained broadly on the basis of e.g. manually placed/moved keypoint information, common to the creation of supervised training samples broadly. The claims recite limitations at a high level of generality, and Applicant’s remarks regarding eligibility analysis don’t even go so far as to explicitly identify what recited limitations, distinct from those drawn to the exception, constitute ‘additional elements’ (i.e. how they necessarily do not fall under any of the groupings), let alone how these may then serve for integration at Prong Two, or as significantly more at 2B.
Drawings
Applicant’s traversal regarding the requirement to amend Figures 2-6 and 19 with a ‘Prior Art’ label, does not present any rationale/reason for why these Figures illustrate what is other than prior art. Examiner understands Applicant’s reply to be a bona fide attempt to advance prosecution since Applicant has not explicitly requested that correction to the drawings be held in abeyance, however Applicant has not provided a substantive traversal identifying why the Figures do not require correction. Applicant’s Specification describes these figures as prior art. Section 1.1 Background at [0079-0081], [0081] “Disclosed Technology 1 is explained with reference to FIG. 2 to FIG. 6. FIG. 2 is a figure depicting an example of positions estimated by Disclosed Technology 1”, Section 2.1 Background, [0174] “in a technology having been disclosed (hereinbelow, also referred to as "Disclosed Technology 2") …”, [0175], etc..
Specification
Applicant’s amendments to the Specification filed 09/05/2025 is/are acknowledged and acceptable. Objections to the Specification previously presented are withdrawn.
Response to Claim Interpretation in view of 35 USC § 112(f)
The claims as amended strike those various ‘___ sections’ so as to perform those associated functional limitations by instead ‘circuitry’. Applicant’s remarks make no reference to MPEP 2181, any of Prongs A-C of the three-prong analysis therein, and do not address either of the two rebuttable presumptions. While it may be asserted that the amendment serves to replace a series of nonce terms (i.e. ‘acquiring section’, ‘reasoning section’), with an alternative nonce term, that is equally if not more ambiguous when it comes to reciting structure sufficient for carrying out the corresponding functions when considered at Prong B, it may be argued that a ‘circuit’ on its face and as understood by POSITA has more of a physical/hardware connotation as compared to a software processing block/unit/module/section. Accordingly, because the Examiner understands “circuit” to have a ‘sufficiently definite’ meaning as the name for something physical/structural, and in further view of the evidentiary standard associated with that second rebuttable presumption (Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1349, 115 USPQ2d 1105, 1111 (Fed. Cir. 2015)), the claims as amended are understood to no longer invoke the provisions of 112(f).
Response to 35 USC § 112(b) Rejections
Applicant’s remarks at page 14 suggest the foregoing amendments address/render moot those issues raised in the 112(b) rejections to the claims. This assertion does not fairly address those issues raised in the 112(b) rejection, as the amendment to the claims (best illustrated in claim 10) effectively changes only instances of the language ‘on a basis of’ to read instead ‘based on’. The 112(b) rejections previously presented raise numerous and significant issues related to clarity and precision, that are not substantively addressed at least because it has not been made clear how “based on a first relative position of a predetermined area of the first subject relative to the first reference position …”, requires any interpretation departing significantly from the language previously presented. Applicant’s remarks fall silent regarding those distinct issues raised for the language of claim 2. Corresponding rejections are maintained and reproduced accordingly. As an additional consideration regarding 112(b), while claims 10 and 11 have not been amended so as to change that basis upon which the third and/or fourth relative positions are obtained, so as to further include “a type of displacement” (this is instead a change/amendment unique to claim 1), it is not clear what such a ‘type of displacement’ can/necessarily includes (see MPEP 2173.05 III. E. Type).
Response to Arguments/Remarks 35 USC § 102/103
Applicant's argument(s) regarding Guo et al. (US 2022/0391013 A1) as applied have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s remarks assert that no showing has been made for how Guo teaches/suggests at least the amended language, however the amended language presents little beyond that which was previously required in the claims (claim 10 being representative). Namely, two ‘new’ acquiring steps for the case of claim 1, have been broken out from those previous acquiring steps, but they concern no more than those first and second reference positions, and first and second relative positions – which were previously presented/recited (and remain so, ‘a’ amended to ‘the’) in what is now that third ‘acquiring’ instance and now the fourth ‘acquiring’ instance respectively) in claim 1. For clarity, a ‘reference’/possibly centroid keypoint position for body/person1 and an associated/relative keypoint position (e.g. eye for person1) (prior to movement/displacement processing – in the figure/112(b) rejection previously presented, displacement that would cause P1’ eye to be approximately located at person2 elbow), and the same for a second body/person2. Guo as applied is not addressed in any manner establishing non-equivalence, and instead remarks present a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention, without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from Guo/references of record. Guo keypoints for e.g. right hands of two subjects (Fig. 5B 552B, 552C, etc.,) are moved away from each other/displaced by means of that disclosed TPDF branch position updating/processing. Furthermore, Guo is exemplary of the manner in which fine-tuning/displacing two ‘relative’ (hand, eye, etc., in association with any other ‘reference’ keypoint, elbow, centroid, etc.) keypoint positions (e.g. hand of person1 to be relocated further away from an otherwise obfuscating keypoint of person2) may serve to disentangle poses in high occlusion multi-instance settings. If applicant’s invention concerns a contribution other than such a fine-tuning, it does not appear explicitly recited/incorporated into the claims(s), and the claims as amended fail to address those precision/clarity concerns previously identified. Same/analogous remarks as extended to claims 2-9 by virtue of their dependence, are similarly non-persuasive.
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.
Claim(s) 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception, in particular an Abstract Idea falling under at least the (c) mental processes grouping (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) and/or the (a) mathematical concepts category/grouping (mathematical relationships, formulas or equations, and/or calculations), not ‘integrated into a practical application’ at Prong Two of Step 2A and without ‘significantly more’ at Step 2B.
Step 1: The claim(s) in question are directed to a computer implemented (hardware/ structural limitations considered under the ‘apply it’ provisions of MPEP 2106.05(f)) method/ process for determining two or more positions of a subject based on the ‘use’ of a trained model that is further derived based on a training sample data augmentation involving a calculation of updated point positions. (Step 1: Yes).
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim. Claims 1/10/11 recite at a high level of generality – “obtaining a reference position…” falling (in view of a plain meaning/broadest reasonable interpretation(s), see MPEP 2111) under the mental processes grouping. Claims 1/10/11 also feature a “moving process” (see e.g. Fig. 24) falling under the mathematical concepts grouping (as per the recent guidance a claim as a whole need not be drawn to exclusively one of the three identified Abstract Idea groupings). Reference may be made to the July 2024 PEG and those various limitations drawn to the mental processes grouping(s), to include those of Example 47 claim 2. Also regarding any assertions that for rejection/analysis the claim(s) must fall neatly under only one of the three identified Abstract Idea groupings, see the remarks above with reference to the recent PEG. The claims/limitations in question are recited at a high level of generality and lack any specifics precluding e.g. that ‘obtaining’ from being interpreted under the mental processes grouping practically performed in the mind (see also MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) identifying how e.g. a use of pen and paper and/or a computer as a tool (to visually analyze/observe acquired images/video) fail to preclude such an interpretation under the mental processes Abstract Idea grouping). The July 17 2024 PEG identifies various process steps identified as being drawn to the mathematical concepts Abstract Idea grouping – e.g. Example 47 claim 2 step(s) (b) (at page 7 describing the recited ‘discretizing’ as encompassing a mathematical concept e.g. rounding data values (that may also be performed mentally)) and (c) (interpreted so as to include mathematical calculations such as performing backpropagation and gradient descent algorithm(s)), in addition to Example 48 claim(s) 1 and 2 steps (b) (a ‘converting’ involving a mathematical operation using an STFT), (c) (an ‘embedding’ on the basis of an explicitly recited formula), and (e) (‘applying binary masks’) (see page 23 of the PEG – available https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2024-AI-SMEUpdateExamples47-49.pdf ). MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(C):
A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word "calculating" in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of "determining" a variable or number using mathematical methods or "performing" a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation.
Dependent claims are similarly analyzed at Prong One. For the case of claim 2, that ‘computing… by adding’ falls under one or more of the Abstract Idea groupings identified above. The limitations of claim(s) 5 and 6 similarly concern evaluations otherwise done mentally, e.g. offsides detection in sports video and/or counting a number of persons/subjects in a picture, and a broad ‘use’ of computer vision is analyzed in view of the ‘apply it’ considerations of MPEP 2106.05(f) as discussed in the recent PEG for the use of generic computer hardware and/or broadly recited machine learning. (Step 2A, Prong One: Yes).
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any ‘additional elements’ recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d). Examiner notes for consideration at Prong Two of 2A that MPEP 2106.05(a), (b), (c), and (e) generally concern limitations that are indicative of integration, whereas 2106.05(f), (g), and (h) generally concern limitations that are not indicative of integration. As an additional note, ‘additional elements’ are generally limitations excluded from interpretation under the Abstract Idea groupings, and may comprise portions of limitations otherwise identified as falling under those Abstract Idea groupings of the 2019 PEG (e.g. any ‘determination’ that may be made mentally accompanied by the use of a neural network and/or generic computer hardware considered under the ‘apply it’ considerations of 2106.05(f)). Any ‘providing’/outputting broadly, and ‘collection’ of data (i.e. image acquisition(s)), be they images for training any learning model and/or data/images visually observable/ evaluated by a user/operator, also fail(s) to integrate at least in view of MPEP 2106.05(g) (extra-solution data gathering/output) and/or 2106.05(h) as ‘generally linking’ the exception to a field of use involving machine learning and/or training imagery thereof. E.g. Claim 4 may be intended to reflect information output for an Autofocus correction/process, however recites broadly the presentation ‘of information’ and so constitutes an additional element considered under 2106.05(g) and/or 2106.05(h). Any assertion that the claimed invention recites particulars of Autofocus control (claim 4), Offsides detection in sports video (claim 5), and/or a ‘practical application’ of counting people (claim 6) would be non-persuasive, as these limitations at best generally link the exception to various fields of use. The claim is not directed to an improvement to ‘the functioning of a computer’ (which is distinct from ‘functions’ a generic and/or specially programmed computer can perform), and the diverse applications generally linked for the case of claims 4-6 evidence against any conclusion that the claims are constrained to a specific “Technical Field” – but instead involve a wide array of uses in which e.g. such a model so trained may be applied (see e.g. Recentive Analytics, Inc., v. Fox Corp., Appeal No. 2023-2437, 18 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 18, 2025) available at https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/23-2437.OPINION.4-18-2025_2500790.pdf). Integration in view of MPEP 2106.05(a) requires an identification of the manner in which the improvement is achieved, to be explicitly and specifically (not at a high level of generality (pre-empting future training data augmentation involving minimally adjusted keypoints)) recited in the claims, as ‘additional elements’ precluded from interpretation under any of the Abstract Idea groupings (since the improvement cannot be to the exception itself). In view of MPEP 2106.05(f), the improvement cannot be merely/broadly automating what is otherwise the exception, nor can it be e.g. a ‘novel’ calculation per se. With reference to MPEP 2106.05(a):
It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements. See the discussion of Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187 and 191-92, 209 USPQ 1, 10 (1981))
Even when viewed in combination, the ‘additional elements’ present do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: No), and the claims are directed to the judicial exception. (Revised Step 2A: Yes [Wingdings font/0xE0] Step 2B).
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to ‘significantly more’ than the recited exception, i.e., whether any ‘additional element’, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. The considerations of Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B overlap, but differ in that 2B also requires considering whether the claims feature any “specific limitation(s) other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field” (WURC) (MPEP 2106.05(d)). Such a limitation if specifically recited however, must still be excluded from interpretation under any of the Abstract Idea groupings. Step 2B further requires a re-evaluation of any additional elements drawn to extra-solution activity in Step 2A (e.g. gathering video/image(s)) – however no limitations appear directed to any novel collection per se. Limitations not indicative of an inventive concept/ ‘significantly more’ include those that are not specifically recited (instead recited at a high level of generality), those that are established as WURC, and/or those that are not ‘additional elements’ by nature of their analysis at Prong One. Reference may also be made to the 2024 PEG describing that an improvement/ inventive concept (for ‘significantly more’ determination(s)) cannot be to the judicial exception itself. The claim(s) in question recite little beyond those limitations recited at a high level of generality and falling under the mental processes and/or mathematical concepts Abstract Idea grouping(s). (Step 2B: No).
Drawings
Figures 2-6 and 19 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). See also Applicant’s Specification (US 2024/0312053 A1) Section 1.1 Background at [0079-0081], [0081] “Disclosed Technology 1 is explained with reference to FIG. 2 to FIG. 6. FIG. 2 is a figure depicting an example of positions estimated by Disclosed Technology 1”, Section 2.1 Background, [0174] “in a technology having been disclosed (hereinbelow, also referred to as "Disclosed Technology 2") …”, [0175], etc.. Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim(s) 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites that e.g. the third relative position is obtained “based on a first relative position of a predetermined area of the first subject relative to the first reference position…”. Supporting disclosure appears to be at least [0189-0190] of the corresponding PGPUB, wherein an exemplary third relative position is P1’ of Fig. 20 and P1 is that first relative position (these are ‘relative’ positions comparable to other known and/or determined positions/ joints/key-points, but they are simply points/positions (see [0189], [0213], relative positions are defined by x and y coordinates for part k of subject n); predetermined areas are e.g. those as disclosed in [0080], eye, hand, etc.,). [0189] discloses “training section 118 obtains updated P1’ (Px1+cx1-cx1', Py1+cy1-cy1’) by subtracting the movement vector (cx1'-cx1, cy1'-cy1) of the center position c1 (cx1, cy1) from the relative position P1 (Px1, Py1).” The claim language when read in light of the specification fails to inform with reasonable certainty, a person having ordinary skill in the art, what the scope of the invention entails, as the supporting disclosure renders it unclear exactly how the third (and fourth) relative position(s) are obtained so as to satisfy the requirement that they remain associated with a predetermined area (e.g. a right eye) despite no explicitly recited constraints on the extent of movement between the first and second reference positions (resulting in the third and fourth reference positions respectively). Fig. 20 does not illustrate a third relative position P1’ as described, as the position/coordinates corresponding to the right eye of the foreground person do not change, and they certainly have not changed to the degree disclosed/required, as such a displacement would result in assigning a right-eye/(predetermined area) key-point/position near the right elbow of the background person (which is a completely different predetermined area). How the fourth relative position is obtained is similarly unclear (stemming from the lack of constraints regarding the motion between e.g. c1 and c2 as identified above). Applicant’s Fig. 20 is reproduced in part below to illustrate where P1’ is understood to exist – where the blue/additional arrow extending from the foreground person’s right eye points/terminates.
PNG
media_image1.png
602
642
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The abovementioned considerations raise the question of what limits exist on the movement vector, or how the third and first reference positions differ – to what extent are they are actually moved if the third and fourth relative positions, when obtained as disclosed, might no longer be associated with the same predetermined area (no longer a right eye). The European search opinion dated 06/26/2024 associated with EP21924827.5A identifies a similar concern at sections 2.2-2.3. Applicant’s Disclosure e.g. Fig. 23 S203, Fig. 24, Fig. 30, etc., suggest as an essential element to the claimed invention (see MPEP § 2172.01), that new center positions are computed for the case that they are shorter than a threshold, and Applicant’s Specification at [0202] suggests the invention relies on the modeling of a Coulomb/repulsive force that “helps to prevent the center positions from being too close to each other” in conjunction with a spring model that “helps prevent the recomputed center position from being too far from the original position”. While MPEP 2173.04 is clear in that breadth of a claim is not to be equated with indefiniteness, the threshold requirements for clarity and precision involve the three pronged inquiry as identified in 2173.02 sub-section II (to include any confounding elements in the Specification/figures as identified above), and whether, when considered as a whole, “the claim apprises one of ordinary skill in the art of its scope and, therefore, serves the notice function required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, by providing clear warning to others as to what constitutes infringement”. In the broadest sense the claim(s) concern data augmentation for training images wherein at least an initial/candidate pose is corrected/moved so as to potentially disentangle a pose from e.g. a different but overlapping or occluding pose/skeleton. A trained pose detection model based thereon may then be implemented in embodiments such as that Autofocus control and/or automating an Offsides detection in sports video as disclosed (claims 4-5; human pose detection resultant from e.g. a novelly trained model, can be used in an extremely broad array of computer vision tasks, said tasks seeming secondary, unless the ‘moving process’ itself differs for each). While broadly moving reference positions ‘away from each other’ in a ‘moving process’ might be amendable to construction, the Office does not interpret claims in the same manner as the courts, and interpretation during prosecution may effectively result in a lower threshold for ambiguity (beneficial for those reasons disclosed in MPEP 2173.02 subsection I). Even if it may be argued that PHOSITA would recognize moving (or generating a newly named instance of) a reference and/or relative position such that it no longer corresponds to the actual feature/joint it is intended to represent would be disadvantageous (training the network to recognize elbows as eyes), and such an understanding/recognition might serve as an implicit upper bounds, Examiner asserts PHOSITA would at the minimum not be apprised of a corresponding lower bound, in terms of that moving process, sufficient for infringement, and that the omission of explicitly recited language defining such limits is unclaimed essential subject matter. As identified in the remarks section above, while potentially unique to the case of claim 1, it is not clear what the recited ‘type of displacement’ can/necessarily includes – see MPEP 2173.05 III Approximations E. “Type”. For the purposes of compact prosecution Examiner reads the language in question to read as “a displacement”.
Claims 10/11 are the method and CRM (see 101 rejection above) claims corresponding to the apparatus of claim 1, are similarly deficient for the reasons identified above, and are similarly rejected accordingly.
Dependent claim(s) 2-9 inherit and fail to cure that/those deficiencies identified above for the case of claim 1, and are rejected accordingly. Claim 2 recites the limitation in part “section that computes a position of the predetermined area of the third subject by adding together the fifth reference position and the fifth relative position” for which it is unclear what the format of such position information takes and what ‘the predetermined area’ is then, if it involves adding together the fifth reference position and the fifth relative position. Both positions are coordinates, which are not in themselves vectors. While a difference (a form of addition) between two coordinates could be described as a vector with a direction and magnitude component, adding the two positions in question, is understood to produce a new coordinate/ position, for which it is not clear what the corresponding predetermined area would be and how it relates to that ‘a predetermined area’ of claim 1. See also that rationale presented above for the case of claim(s)s 1/10/11 with reference to that modified version of Fig. 20. The disclosure appears to describe relative positions in terms of x and y coordinates, but not as e.g. a vector relative to any reference position. Examiner understands claim 2 to correspond to Applicant’s disclosure at [0145] with reference to post processing section 114 and step S112 however this disclosure features little beyond that disclosure claimed. Clarification is requested, and claims 3-6 are similarly rejected as they depend on intervening claim 2. Claim 6 is unclear in reciting “counts the number of the fifth reference position”. The language in question may involve an application such as [0230] and Fig. 29, however for the case of claim 1 the fifth reference position is of a single subject. Claims 8 and 9 are additionally unclear in view of the language “does” in lines 4 and 6 respectively. Taking the case of claim 9, at line 6 “the fourth reference position is an unmoved position of the second reference position does.” The language “does” appears unnecessary, and unclear if read to assert that the fourth reference position is an ‘unmoved position’ despite the second reference position being ‘moved’. Since the fourth is understood to be the new/moved (or potentially unmoved if only the first reference and first relative positions are moved) position corresponding to the second, the language ‘does’ is unclear. For the purposes of compact prosecution in both instances the language ‘does’ is read out of the claims, and involves an embodiment wherein only one of the first or second reference positions need be moved. Concerning claim(s) 2-6 in particular, with reference to MPEP § 2143.03 an examiner should not simply speculate about the meaning of the claim language and then enter an obviousness rejection in view of that speculative interpretation. See also MPEP § 2173.06 describing where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859,134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962). Examiner notes that prior art based rejections may apply to one or more claims as potentially amended to correct the abovementioned deficiencies.
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.
1. Claims 1, 7, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Guo et al. (US 2024/0203152 A1).
As to claim 10, Guo discloses a reasoning method comprising:
acquiring second image data and a trained model obtained (Fig. 3, [0064] “In some embodiments, the data processing model 500 is trained end-to-end via minimizing a total loss L1 that is a sum of a backbone loss LB, a TPDF loss Lh, and a global pose loss LP. The backbone loss LB, TPDF loss Lh, and global pose loss LP are contributed by multiple stages (i.e., the backbone network 504, TPDF branch 506, and global pose network 508) of the data processing model 500”, etc.,) based on
a third reference position and a fourth reference position that are obtained by a moving process of moving a first reference position of a first subject captured in first image data and a second reference position of a second subject captured in the first image data away from each other (Fig. 5B, Fig. 7, reference points for each of the right hands (552B and 552C) (but not limited thereto for the case of Guo as may be applied, Guo discloses K parts), for the two distinct subjects associated with 604B and 604C respectively, are moved away from each other by means of TPDF branch position updating, [0063] “Each TPDF map 512 encodes a displacement field involving one or more body parts of the same part type (e.g., two arms coming from different human bodies) in a single map and is effective in the truncated range as defined by the predefined vector truncating threshold, which thereby enables learning of convolutional kernels of the TPDF branch 506 in some embodiments. Referring to FIG. 5B, the image 550 includes three right hands 552A-552C of three human bodies. Each right hand 552 corresponds to a truncated range 554 as defined by the predefined vector truncating threshold. The displacement vectors (e.g., a vector 556) are non-zero for positions within the truncated ranges 554A-554C, and equal to zero for positions external to the truncated ranges 554A-554C. The right hands 552B and 552C are proximate to each other on the image 550, and their corresponding truncated ranges 554B and 554C overlap each other. Each position in an overlapped area of the truncated ranges 554B and 554C is closer to one of the right hands 552B and 552C, and therefore, corresponds to the displacement vector connecting the respective position to the one of the right hands 552B and 552C. For example, a position 558 in the overlapped area is closer to the right hand 552C, and its displacement vector connects the position 558 to the right hand 552C”, [0068] “The first position P1 is modified to an updated position P2”, [0069] “By these means, the data processing model 500 fuses predicted bottom-up parts and top-down global poses and allows the TPDF branch 506 to drive a structurally valid global pose towards more position-precise part detection (e.g., from P1 (xj, y) to P2 (xj, y)), thereby unifying advantages from global pose and local part detection”, etc.,; Examiner notes Guo need not be applied such that the reference parts are the same reference parts for each subject, and that Guo discloses a TPDF branch that updates positions for all K parts ([0065], [0071], etc.,), stated differently the claim as permissibly interpreted minimally requires driving/updating two reference/key-point positions for two subjects (need not be centroids, need not be the same part/key-point), away from each other), and
a third relative position and a fourth relative position (corresponding vectors of the TPDF maps associated with 552A/C and 552C/A, alternatively keypoints of a different part type but associated with the reference position by nature of being associated with the same subject and in a known/assumed relative spatial relationship therewith (e.g. elbow to hand)) that are obtained based on a first relative position of a predetermined area ([0063] “and is effective in the truncated range as defined by the predefined vector truncating threshold”, Fig. 15 1510 “the respective predefined part type”) of the first subject relative to the first reference position (Fig. 5B, Fig. 7, [0063] “For example, a position 558 in the overlapped area is closer to the right hand 552C, and its displacement vector connects the position 558 to the sright hand 552C”; Consistent with Applicant’s Specification at e.g. [0189], Fig. 20, and as discussed above, ‘relative positions’ are simply keypoints/joints/points that are ‘relative’ because at least one spatial relationship between the instant and neighboring/associated key-points is known/assumed/ measurable, but the claim language recited does not specifically identify how they comprise or convey information indicative of how they may be linked to neighboring points, and accordingly those vectors of the TPDF maps linking individual positions in the image to a closest body part among the K body parts (Fig. 15 1510) reads, even if those individual positions do not correspond to a second joint/key-point/eye etc.,), a second relative position of a predetermined area of the second subject relative to the second reference position (see above, but for the case of those vectors associated with e.g. a different hand point (e.g. 552B) and/or different K part all together, but such that the second predetermined area corresponds to an updated/modified keypoint position and the associated predefined range for associated vectors), and the moving process (see above, wherein keypoint updating/modifying is a translation/displacement); and
obtaining a fifth reference position of a third subject captured in the second image data and a fifth relative position of a predetermined area of the third subject relative to the fifth reference position based on the trained model and the second image data (Fig. 7 e.g. points such as P3 for one or more of the K parts, corresponding to a ‘fifth reference position’, wherein the ‘third’ subject may be either of the 1st and 2nd, and a relative position of one or more parts connected thereto by the complete pose model (consistent with [0213] of Applicant’s Specification and relative positions xnk, ynk) – in other words with reference to e.g. Guo Figures 13 and 14 for illustration purposes, the fifth reference position may be right hand, and the fifth relative position is the right arm elbow of that same subject; also an interpretation wherein reference positions need not be body/subject center/centroids is not inconsistent with Applicant’s Specification – see [0093] “Note that the human-body center positions C represent an example of human-body "reference positions." Accordingly, any positions of human bodies may be treated as the human-body center positions C.”).
As to claim 1, this claim is the apparatus claim corresponding to the method of claim 10 and is rejected accordingly. Regarding corresponding structure see Guo e.g. Fig. 1-2, [0087], [0034], etc.,
As to claim 11, this claim is the CRM claim corresponding to the method of claim 10/apparatus of claim 1, is rejected accordingly.
As to claim 7, Guo discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
Guo further discloses the apparatus wherein the third reference position is a position to which the first reference position has moved, and wherein the fourth reference position is a position to which the second reference position has moved (Guo as applied above for the case of claim 10/1, [0069] “By these means, the data processing model 500 fuses predicted bottom-up parts and top-down global poses and allows the TPDF branch 506 to drive a structurally valid global pose towards more position-precise part detection (e.g., from P1 (xj, y) to P2 (xj, y)), thereby unifying advantages from global pose and local part detection”).
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 of this title, 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.
1. Claims 6 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al. (US 2024/0203152 A1).
As to claim 6, Guo discloses the apparatus of claim 3.
Guo fails to disclose the apparatus wherein the circuitry is further configured to count a number of the fifth reference position. Guo does however illustrate how the plurality of detected poses (and one or more key-points of interest thereof) may be readily counted (manually or otherwise). Official Notice has been taken to the manner in which human pose estimation models are routinely used for such a counting as broadly recited. Examples include retail analytics for tracking traffic in and out of a store and/or optimizing store/plannogram layouts, surveillance, and/or crowd density analytics for e.g. security or logistical purposes.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system and method of Guo to further comprise such a counting, as such a counting would be integral to a broad array of retail and/or security analytics applications wherein the model of Guo may then be subsequently implemented.
As to claims 8-9, these claims are apparatus claims directed to instances where alternatively only one of the first or second reference positions are moved (still satisfying the requirement that they be moved ‘away from eachother’ broadly, and that the third is based on the first, and that the fourth is based on the second). Guo most explicitly illustrates the movement of P1 to P2, as identified above, but as similarly identified above involves optionally adjusting positions for each of the subjects and each of the K parts thereof. A person of ordinary skill in the art however would recognize that adjusting 552B and 552C such that they overlap less and are more readily associated with the respective subjects, would not for example involve moving 552A, or alternatively a point associated with the foot of any subject for the instance that only the right hands require adjustment. The interpretation notes above attempt to address the manner in which Guo appears applicable in a number of ways (see first paragraph at page 14 above). Guo further discloses confidence maps 904 comprising those part confidence maps – see [0085], and wherein the fusion process is applied selectively for areas having e.g. same parts impacted by occlusion from another body part of the same part type.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system and method of Guo further comprise selectively repositioning key-points in some instances (e.g. Guo Fig. 14 C) and leaving parts unmoved otherwise (e.g. high confidence part detections with no occlusion e.g. 552A vs. 552C (moving 552C as illustrated would similarly move it away from 552A but 552A has no neighboring/occluding same part)), as similarly taught/suggested by Guo, the motivation as similarly suggested therein and readily recognized by a person of ordinary skill in the art that such a selective fusion may allow for more efficient processing in the event that some part detections are associated with a high confidence and/or are not characterized by any occlusion involving a same part type (even if they are in close proximity to a different part type of a same or different subject).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IAN L LEMIEUX whose telephone number is (571)270-5796. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00 - 6:00 EST.
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, Chan Park can be reached on 571-272-7409. 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 Busin