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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/08/2026 has been entered.
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 2 recites the limitation "the state of activities of daily living" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the state of activities of daily living" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the state of activities of daily living" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the state of activities of daily living" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Clams 1, 3, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GUACK et al. (US20220067689) hereafter GUACK in view of Liu et al. (US20140169623) hereafter Liu and in further view of NPL5 (3D Analysis of Upper Limbs Motion during Rehabilitation Exercises Using the KinectTM Sensor: Development, Laboratory Validation and Clinical Application, Bruno Bonnechère et al., MDPI, Pages 1-18) hereafter NPL5
1. Regarding claim 1, GUACK discloses a determination method (figs 1-2, 6-8 shows and discloses a method performed by a computer) performed by a computer, the determination method comprising:
capturing an image that includes, as a subject, the target person performing the specific action (figs 6, 8 (801, 803) and paras 0203,0204, 0211 shows and discloses a camera 605 capturing an image of a user picking up an item 609 from the shelf (i.e the target person performing the specific action of picking up an item);
estimating a skeletal model of the target person in the image based on the image captured (fig 6,7 and 8 (805) and para 0215 shows and discloses estimating a skeletal model of the target person in the image based on the image captured);
in fig 6, para 0219, 230 GUACK shows and discloses determining a 3D region (i.e a cube 311 around a wrist skeleton model as seen in fig 6). GUACK is silent and however fails to disclose instructing a target person to perform a specific action for rehabilitation for which a determination criterion is set in advance; setting a plurality of three-dimensional regions around the skeletal model based on positions of a plurality of skeletal points in the skeletal model estimated; identifying, among the plurality of three-dimensional regions set, a three- dimensional region where a skeletal point of a wrist of the target person is located in the specific action; and determining activities of daily living, among a predetermined set of activities of daily living, that the target person is capable of performing based on a comparison between the three-dimensional region identified and the determination criterion.
Liu discloses instructing a target person to perform a specific action (figs 2-3, paras 0019-0022, 0026, 0059, 0072, 0074, 0092, 0101-0102 shows and discloses instructing a user (i.e target person) to perform the specific action (‘i.e an activity such as bend the body and pick up) and recognizing the action meeting the above limitations, examiner notes that the specifics of “a specific action” are not required by the current claim) (figs 2 (204), 3, paras 0049-0050, 0065, 0090-0091 discloses “for each joint j, it’s local region may be partitioned into NxXNyXNz grid (i.e setting a plurality of 3D regions (3Dgrid) based on the plurality of the skeletal points (i.e each joint) in the skeletal model as seen in figs 2, 3 meeting the above claim limitations, examiner notes that the specifics of a plurality of the 3D regions are not required by the current claim); identifying, among the plurality of three-dimensional regions set, a three- dimensional region where a skeletal point of a wrist of the target person is located in the specific action (fig 2, fig 8 (809, 811) and paras 0050-0052, 0056, 0252 shows identifying, among the plurality of three-dimensional regions set, a three- dimensional region where a skeletal point of a wrist of the target person is located (i.e determining a 3D joint (a three dimensional region) position (i.e location)) in the specific action (i.e picking up) meeting the claim limitations); and
determining activities of daily living among a predetermined set of activities of daily living, that the target person is capable of performing based on (figs 2-3, fig 8 (809, 811), paras 0021-0022, 0059, 0088 and 0252 discloses determining activities of daily living (such as bend the body and pick up) among a predetermined set of activities of daily living (examples of predetermined activities of daily living that the target person is capable of performing are disclosed in para 0088) that the target person is capable of performing based on the three-dimensional region identified) target person based on a comparison between the three-dimensional region identified and the determination criterion.
NPL5 discloses instructing a target person to perform a specific action for rehabilitation for which a determination criterion is set in advance and determining activities of the target person based on a comparison between the three-dimensional region identified and the determination criterion (pages 9-10, 13-15 section 5 discloses performing a 3D evaluation of the upper limbs for the patients performing the tasks involving motion from rehabilitation exercises and analyzing 328 parameters (i.e three-dimensional region (upper limbs) identified and the determination criterion for rehabilitation set in advance, examiner notes that the specifics of the determination criterion are not required by the current claim) and the results obtained with MLS are compared with the gold standard MBS meeting the above claim limitations). Before the effective filing date of the invention was made, GUACK, Liu and NPL because they are from the same field of endeavor and are analogous art of image processing. The suggestion/motivation would be an improved system/method at para 0067 as taught by Liu and an improved visualization of full 3D data in real-time (page 15 section 6) as taught by NPL5. Therefore, it would be obvious and within one of ordinary skill in the art to have recognized the advantages of Liu and NPL5 in the method/system of GUACK to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
2. Regarding claim 3, GUACK, Liu and NPL5 disclose the determination method according to claim 1. GUACK discloses wherein the capturing includes capturing moving images that include a plurality of images each being the image, and in the estimating, the skeletal model in each of the plurality of images included in the moving images is estimated based on the moving images (para 0078 discloses “a video signal” being inputted and para 0211, 0213-0215 discloses capturing images meeting the limitations of moving images used in the processing as shown in figs 1 and 6-8).
3. Claim 10 is a corresponding device claim of claim 1. See the corresponding explanation of claim 1. GUACK discloses and shows a determination device as seen in figs 1-2 and para 0211.
4. Regarding claim 11, GUACK discloses a determination system (fig 2 shows a system) comprising:
an information terminal (figs 1-2 (100) shows and discloses the information terminal); and
a server device (fig 2 (200)) that is connected to the information terminal (fig 2 (100)) via communication (fig 2 (210)), wherein the information terminal includes:
a communicator that communicates with the server device (fig 1 (110) is the communication interface in the information terminal to communicate with the server device 200 as seen in fig 2);
a camera that captures an image which includes, as a subject, the target person performing the specific action (fig 1 (120), para 0078 shows and discloses an input interface which is a camera capturing an image which includes, as a subject, the target person performing the specific action (as seen in figs 6-8), and
the server device (fig 2 shows the server device 200) includes: an estimator that estimates a skeletal model of the target person in the image based on the image captured by the camera (fig 6,7 and 8 (805) and para 0215 shows and discloses estimating a skeletal model of the target person in the image based on the image captured by the camera). As seen in fig 6, para 0219, 230 GUACK shows and discloses determining a 3D region (i.e a cube 311 around a wrist skeleton model as seen in fig 6). GUACK is silent and however fails to disclose an instructor that instructs a target person to perform a specific action for rehabilitation for which a determination criterion is set in advance and a setter that sets a plurality of three-dimensional regions around the skeletal model based on positions of a plurality of skeletal points in the skeletal model estimated; an identifier that identifies, among the plurality of three-dimensional regions set, a three-dimensional region which includes a skeletal point of a wrist of the target person in the specific action; and a determiner that activities of daily living, among a predetermined set of activities of daily living, that the target person is capable of performing based on a comparison between the three-dimensional region identified and the determination criterion.
Liu discloses an instructor that instructs a target person to perform a specific action (figs 2-3, paras 0019-0022, 0026, 0059, 0072, 0074, 0092, 0101-0102 shows and discloses instructing a user (i.e target person) to perform the specific action (‘i.e an activity such as bend the body and pick up) and recognizing the action meeting the above limitations, examiner notes that the specifics of “a specific action” are not required by the current claim) and a setter that sets a plurality of three-dimensional regions around the skeletal model based on positions of a plurality of skeletal points in the skeletal model estimated (figs 2 (204), 3, paras 0049-0050, 0065, 0090-0091 discloses “for each joint j, it’s local region may be partitioned into NxXNyXNz grid (i.e setting a plurality of 3D regions (3Dgrid) based on the plurality of the skeletal points (i.e each joint) in the skeletal model as seen in figs 2, 3 meeting the above claim limitations, examiner notes that the specifics of a plurality of the 3D regions are not required by the current claim); an identifier that identifies, among the plurality of three-dimensional regions set, a three-dimensional region which includes a skeletal point of a wrist of the target person in the specific action (fig 2, fig 8 (809, 811) and paras 0050-0052, 0056, 0252 shows identifying, among the plurality of three-dimensional regions set, a three- dimensional region where a skeletal point of a wrist of the target person is located (i.e determining a 3D joint (a three dimensional region) position (i.e location)) in the specific action (i.e picking up) meeting the claim limitations); and
a determiner that determines activities of daily living among a predetermined set of activities of daily living, that the target person is capable of performing based on (figs 2-3, fig 8 (809, 811), paras 0021-0022, 0059, 0088 and 0252 discloses determining activities of daily living (such as bend the body and pick up) among a predetermined set of activities of daily living (examples of predetermined activities of daily living that the target person is capable of performing are disclosed in para 0088) that the target person is capable of performing based on the three-dimensional region identified)
NPL5 an instructor that instructs a target person to perform a specific action for rehabilitation for which a determination criterion is set in advance and determines activities of the target person based on a comparison between the three-dimensional region identified and the determination criterion (pages 9-10, 13-15 section 5 discloses performing a 3D evaluation of the upper limbs for the patients performing the tasks involving motion from rehabilitation exercises and analyzing 328 parameters (i.e three-dimensional region (upper limbs) identified and the determination criterion for rehabilitation set in advance, examiner notes that the specifics of the determination criterion are not required by the current claim) and the results obtained with MLS are compared with the gold standard MBS meeting the above claim limitations). Before the effective filing date of the invention was made, GUACK, Liu and NPL because they are from the same field of endeavor and are analogous art of image processing. The suggestion/motivation would be an improved system/method at para 0067 as taught by Liu and an improved visualization of full 3D data in real-time (page 15 section 6) as taught by NPL5. Therefore, it would be obvious and within one of ordinary skill in the art to have recognized the advantages of Liu and NPL5 in the method/system of GUACK to obtain the invention as specified in claim 11.
Examiner's Note: Examiner has cited figures, and paragraphs in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested for the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Examiner has also cited references in PTO892 but not relied on, which are relevant and pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure, and may also be reading (anticipatory/obvious) on the claims and claimed limitations. Applicant is advised to consider the references in preparing the response/amendments in-order to expedite the prosecution.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6 are 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAYESH PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1227. The examiner can normally be reached IFW Mon-FRI.
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, Andrew Bee can be reached at 571-270-5183. 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.
/JAYESH A PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2677
/JAYESH PATEL/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2677
Prosecution Insights