Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
The remarks filed on 12/3/25 have been considered. Please see newly incorporated references Yi (20190073524) and Trautwein (20210174503) that teach selecting and functional movement of the human.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-8, 16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanaujia (article titled “Part Segmentation of Visual Hull for 3D Human Pose Estimation.”) in view of Yi (20190073524) and Trautwein (20210174503) that
Regarding claim 1, Kanaujia teaches an image segmentation method for analyzing digital image data and detecting a location of a joint center of a human subject, the method comprising the steps of: capturing a digital image using an image capture device (abstract);
detecting a visual hull segmentation of the digital image, the visual hull segmentation including one or more proxy spheres (abstract and section 3);
selecting an initial segmentation algorithm based on a context of the visual hull segmentation (sections 4-5);
identifying a set of initial joint center coordinates using the initial segmentation algorithm (section 4.1, mean shift clustering);
capturing a functional movement of the human subject (section 7, joint localization accuracy);
to select an updated segmentation algorithm (section 7, SVM);
identifying a set of updated joint center coordinates using the updated segmentation algorithm (figure 1e, updating each frame);
and generating an updated segmentation model based on the set of updated joint center coordinates (figure 1 and section 6, LM model).
Yi teaches using a DNN for determining the functional movement of the human (pars. 20-33 and 47-54)
It would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in Kanaujia the ability to use a DNN for determingin the functional movement as taught by Yi. The reason is to have a refined movement determination of a movement.
Trautwein teaches selecting different algorithms based on what is optimal in pars. 30-33 and 56-58.
It would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in Kanaujia and Yi the ability to select an algorithm as taught by Trautwein. The reason is to be able to pick an optimal algorithm for each specific movement.
Regarding claim 2, see the abstract of Kanaujia, streams.
Regarding claim 5, see section 7 of Kanaujia.
Regarding claim 6, see par. 47-54 of Yi.
Regarding claim 7, see figure 1 of Kanaujia.
Regarding claim 8, see pars. 19-23 of Yi.
Regarding claim 16, see the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 18, see section 7 of Kanaujia.
Regarding claim 19, see the rejection of claim 6.
Regarding claim 20, see the rejection of claim 7.
Claim(s) 3-4, 9-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanaujia (article titled “Part Segmentation of Visual Hull for 3D Human Pose Estimation.”) in view of Yi in view of Trautwein in further view of Hasler (20140072175).
Regarding claim 3, Hasler teaches a markerless system in pars. 68 and 72.
It would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in Kanaujia the ability to use a markerless motion capture system as taught by Hasler in order to add more flexibility to the system.
Regarding claim 4, see par. 62 (blob) of Hasler and section 3 of Kanaujia.
Regarding claim 9, see the rejection of claim 1, pars. 24-26 and 61 of Hasler and and figure 1 of Kanaujia.
Regarding claim 10, see pars. 19 and 33-34 of Hasler.
Regarding claim 11, see the rejection of claim 3.
Regarding claim 12-13, see the rejection of 4 and section 7 of Kanaujia.
Regarding claim 14, see pars. 28-37 of Hasler.
Regarding claim 15, see the rejection of claim 1 an pars. 24-26 and 61 of Halser.
Regarding claim 17, see the rejection of claim 4.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HADI AKHAVANNIK whose telephone number is (571)272-8622. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM - 5 PM Monday to Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Henok Shiferaw can be reached at (571) 272-4637. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HADI AKHAVANNIK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2676