DETAILED ACTION
This is the Final Rejection based on the 18/323,480 application filed on 05/25/2023 and which claims as amended on 12/04/2025 have been considered in the ensuing 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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/25/2023 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
On line 2, “a user” should be corrected to ---the user---
Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Amendments
The amendments to the claims have been sufficient to overcome the claim objections and the 35 USC 112(b) rejections.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 11, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hsiao (PG Patent Publication No. US20220379163A1).
Regarding claim 1:
Hsiao discloses a treadmill (see Fig 1), comprising: a base (base 11), configured to determine an operation space of the treadmill (Hsiao discloses a camera that is used to determine whether or not a user is within an operation space, see paragraph [0028]); a console ( input unit 4), configured to show operating information of the treadmill (see Fig. 1); a light sensor (camera 31), configured to acquire image frames toward the operation space using a field of view ( “The camera 31 is arranged at a predefined height range above the running belt 15 for photographing, and is configured to photograph an image of the runner 9”, paragraph 0026); and a processor, configured to perform motion detection by calculating a correlation between the image frames sequentially captured by the light sensor to prevent the treadmill from being accidentally woken up ( “The image photographing step S1 is to obtain an image within the predefined height range on top of the running belt of the treadmill 15. The activation analysis step S2 is to analyze whether the image obtained at the image photographing step S1 containing the runner 9, and to analyze whether a height of the runner 9 is greater than the predefined height. If the height of the runner 9 is greater than the predefined height, a first monitoring output is generated… When no first monitoring output is generated in the activation analysis step S2 (meaning that the height of the runner 9 is not greater than the predefined height), the control unit 5 is able to control the driving roller 13 to prevent it from being driven by the driving unit 2 (such as preventing electrical conduction of the driving unit 2), such that even the runner 9 has inputted the command via the input unit 4, the running belt 15 still cannot be driven to rotate. Accordingly, it is able to prevent accidental activation of the treadmill with a safety monitoring function by a child of insufficient height”, paragraphs 0032-0038; The control unit of Hsiao shows the processor of the claimed. The control unit of Hsiao analyzing the images from the camera to determine if a person is of the required height shows, in the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, the functional limitation of performing motion detection by calculating a correlation between the image frames sequentially), after a motion is detected, then perform face detection and human detection on the image frames ( “the control unit 5 is able to analyze a head position of the runner 9 based on the image photographed by the camera 31 and to analyze the height of the runner 9 based on the head position of the runner 9… The activation analysis step S2 is to analyze whether the image obtained at the image photographing step S1 containing the runner 9, and to analyze whether a height of the runner 9 is greater than the predefined height. If the height of the runner 9 is greater than the predefined height, a first monitoring output is generated. In this embodiment, the activation analysis step S2 is to analyze whether the image obtained contains an object, and then to analyze whether a head portion of the object in the image can be identified. Next, the head position of the runner 9 is determined, following which the height of the runner 9”, paragraphs [0033-0034]), and identify whether the operation space is occupied by any user according to detection results of the face detection and the human detection ( “If the height of the runner 9 is greater than the predefined height, a first monitoring output is generated”, paragraph [0033]; The first monitoring output of Hsiao is only generated once the runner is determined to be a predefined height based on step S2 of Hsiao, which shows the face detection and the human detection of the claimed invention).
PNG
media_image1.png
397
337
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Hsiao
Regarding claim 2:
Hsiao discloses that the light sensor is arranged on the console (FIG. 2), and a bottom edge of the field of view of the light sensor is arranged to be parallel to a horizontal line (“The camera 31 is arranged at a predefined height range above the running belt 15 for photographing, and is configured to photograph an image of the runner 9”, paragraph [0026], see FIG. 2 below; In order for the camera of Hsiao to determine if a person is above a predefined height range above the running belt, the bottom edge extends across the width of the running belt, thereby showing a bottom edge. In the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, the running belt of Hsiao shows the horizontal line of the claimed invention).
PNG
media_image2.png
397
492
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Hsiao
Regarding claim 4:
Hsiao discloses that the processor is configured to determine a face region in the image frames using a face detection algorithm (As noted in claim 1 above, the control unit of Hsiao analyzing whether the image obtained at S1 contains the runner shows, in the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, shows the human detection of the claimed invention. the control unit requires an algorithm in order to analyze the images from the camera, thereby showing, in the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, the face detection algorithm), determine a human region in the image frames using a human detection algorithm (As noted above in claim 1, the control unit of Hsiao analyzing whether the height of the runner is greater than the predefined height shows, in the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, the face detection of the claimed invention as head portion is being analyzed by Hsiao. The control unit requires an algorithm in order to analyze whether the height of the runner is greater than the predefined height, thereby showing, in the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, the human detection algorithm), and identify whether the operation space is occupied by any user according to the face region and the human region in the image frames ( “If the height of the runner 9 is greater than the predefined height, a first monitoring output is generated”, paragraph [0033]; The first monitoring output of Hsiao is only generated once the runner is determined to be a predefined height based on step S2 of Hsiao, which shows the face detection and the human detection of the claimed invention).
Regarding claim 5:
Hsiao discloses that upon the face region being not within the human region and a height of the human region being smaller than a half of the field of view, the processor is configured to identify that the operation space is not occupied by any user ( “The control unit 5 is configured to continuously analyze a change of the height of the runner 9 based on the image photographed by the camera, and to control the driving unit 2 and to control a rotational speed of the driving roller 13 when a maximum height change of the runner 9 within a predefined time is greater than a predefined height difference. In this embodiment, the predefined time is 5 seconds, and the predefined height difference is 30 cm, however the present invention is not limited to such height”, paragraph [0030]; the predefined height difference of Hsiao shows the processor is able to identify the operation space of the claimed invention not being occupied by a user when the face region is not within the human region and the height of the human region being smaller than a half of the field of view).
Regarding claim 7:
Hsiao discloses that upon a bottom edge of the human region being not aligned with a bottom edge of the image frames, the processor is configured to identify that the operation space is not occupied by any user ( “The control unit 5 is configured to continuously analyze a change of the height of the runner 9 based on the image photographed by the camera, and to control the driving unit 2 and to control a rotational speed of the driving roller 13 when a maximum height change of the runner 9 within a predefined time is greater than a predefined height difference. In this embodiment, the predefined time is 5 seconds, and the predefined height difference is 30 cm, however the present invention is not limited to such height”, paragraph [0030]; The predefined height difference of Hsiao shows the processor is able to identify the operation space of the claimed invention not being occupied by a user when a bottom edge of the human region is not aligned with the bottom edge of the image frames. Moreover, as this claim is an apparatus claim, the intended use of the processor to determine exercise performance according to a variation of moving speed is taught by Hsiao).
Regarding claim 11:
Hsiao discloses a wakeup method of a, the treadmill comprising a console (input unit 4), a base (base 11) and an optical sensing chip (camera 31), the wakeup method comprising: entering an idle state ( “When the runner 9 uses the treadmill with a safety monitoring function and inputs the command via the input unit 4 such that the running belt 15 is expected to be activated for rotation, the control unit 5 executes the image photographing step S1 and the activation analysis step S2 first” paragraph [0036]; The input of the command of Hsiao such that the running belt is expected to be activated shows the entering of the idle state of the claimed invention); performing motion detection using the optical sensing chip, by calculating a correlation between image frames sequentially captured by the optical sensing chip, to prevent the treadmill from being accidentally woken up ( “The image photographing step S1 is to obtain an image within the predefined height range on top of the running belt of the treadmill 15. The activation analysis step S2 is to analyze whether the image obtained at the image photographing step S1 containing the runner 9, and to analyze whether a height of the runner 9 is greater than the predefined height. If the height of the runner 9 is greater than the predefined height, a first monitoring output is generated… When no first monitoring output is generated in the activation analysis step S2 (meaning that the height of the runner 9 is not greater than the predefined height), the control unit 5 is able to control the driving roller 13 to prevent it from being driven by the driving unit 2 (such as preventing electrical conduction of the driving unit 2), such that even the runner 9 has inputted the command via the input unit 4, the running belt 15 still cannot be driven to rotate. Accordingly, it is able to prevent accidental activation of the treadmill with a safety monitoring function by a child of insufficient height” see paragraph [0032-0034]); after a motion is detected, then performing occupancy detection of the base using the optical sensing chip, wherein the occupancy detection is configured to identify whether the base is occupied or not ( “the control unit 5 is able to analyze a head position of the runner 9 based on the image photographed by the camera 31 and to analyze the height of the runner 9 based on the head position of the runner 9… The activation analysis step S2 is to analyze whether the image obtained at the image photographing step S1 containing the runner 9, and to analyze whether a height of the runner 9 is greater than the predefined height. If the height of the runner 9 is greater than the predefined height, a first monitoring output is generated. In this embodiment, the activation analysis step S2 is to analyze whether the image obtained contains an object, and then to analyze whether a head portion of the object in the image can be identified. Next, the head position of the runner 9 is determined, following which the height of the runner 9” see paragraph [0028]; Step S2 of Hsiao shows the occupancy detection of the claimed invention); and upon detecting that the base is occupied by a user, waking up the console ( “As a result, it can be used as a determination standard for determining whether the driving roller 13 can be driven by the driving unit 2 to rotate, thereby preventing the hazard due to accidental activation by a child of insufficient height”, paragraph [0041]).
Regarding claim 13:
Hsiao discloses the optical sensing chip is arranged on the console (see FIG. 2), and the optical sensing chip comprises a light sensor for acquiring the image frames toward a front of the console ( “The camera 31 is arranged at a predefined height range above the running belt 15 for photographing, and is configured to photograph an image of the runner 9. n this embodiment, the camera 31 is arranged on the front base 17 and is configured to photograph rearward in order to photograph the image of the runner 9”, paragraph [0026]; The camera of Hsiao shows the light sensor of the claimed invention for acquiring image frames toward towards the front of the console), and a bottom edge of a field of view of the light sensor is parallel to a horizontal line ( “The camera 31 is arranged at a predefined height range above the running belt 15 for photographing, and is configured to photograph an image of the runner 9”, see FIG. 2 above in claim 2; The area seen in FIG. 2 with the dashed lines extending from the camera 31 to the runner 9 shows the field of view of the claimed invention. In order for the camera of Hsiao to determine if a person is above a predefined height range above the running belt, the bottom edge extends across the width of the running belt, thereby showing a bottom edge. In the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, the running belt of Hsiao shows the horizontal line of the claimed invention).
Regarding claim 14:
Hsiao discloses using the optical sensor chip to determine a face region in the image frames using a face detection algorithm (As noted in claim 11 above, the control unit of Hsiao analyzing whether the image obtained at S1 contains the runner shows, in the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, shows the human detection of the claimed invention. In light of the functional language of the claim, the control unit requires an algorithm in order to analyze the images from the camera, thereby showing, in the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, the face detection algorithm), determine a human region in the image frames using a human detection algorithm ( As noted above in claim 11, the control unit of Hsiao analyzing whether the height of the runner is greater than the predefined height shows, in the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, the face detection of the claimed invention as head portion is being analyzed by Hsiao. The control unit requires an algorithm in order to analyze whether the height of the runner is greater than the predefined height, thereby showing, in the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, the human detection algorithm), and perform the occupancy detection according to the face region and the human region in the image frames ( “If the height of the runner 9 is greater than the predefined height, a first monitoring output is generated”, paragraph [0033]; The first monitoring output of Hsiao is only generated once the runner is determined to be a predefined height based on step S2 of Hsiao, which shows the occupancy detection of the claimed invention).
Regarding claim 15:
Hsiao discloses that the optical sensing chip identifies that the base is not occupied by a user upon at least one of following conditions being true, the image frames not containing the face region and the human region, the face region not within the human region ( Step S2 of Hsiao shows the condition of the claimed invention wherein the face region is not within the human region), a height of the human region being smaller than a half of the field of view, a shift of the human region from a center line of the image frames being larger than or equal to a predetermined distance, and a bottom edge of the human region not aligned with a bottom edge of the image frames (see rejection of claim 11 above).
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsiao (PG Patent Publication No. US20220379163A1), in view of Pan (Chinese Patent Publication No. CN110711346A). Hsiao discloses the device as substantially claimed above.
Regarding claim 3:
Hsiao fails to show the treadmill further comprises another light sensor arranged below a tread belt of the base and configured to detect a height variation of the tread belt, and the processor is further configured to calculate at least one of a step frequency and a weight of a user.
Pan, from the same field of endeavor, discloses on page 1, “The invention claims a running treadmill for vibration detection structure, comprising a running table bottom frame, running side of the bottom frame is provided with a sensor, the sensor comprising a sensor seat and photosensitive movable block; the sensor seat is internally equipped with a PCB plate and photosensitive element, a PCB plate is connected with a wire, the wire from the wire hole of the sensor seat on one side; the upper end face of said sensor seat is provided with an opening, the sensing movable block is sleeved with a spring, and from the opening of the upper end face of the sensor seat into. the photosensitive element located below the sensing movable block, and connected with the PCB board. treadmill for vibration detection structure of the invention can real time detect the running vibration amplitude of the plate during running, a state so as to take corresponding measures treadmill adjusting factor according to running posture, weight, etc. of the user, so that different people use experience consistent, and assembling is simple and the cost is low”. Pan teaches another light sensor arranged below a tread belt of the base and being configured to detect a height variation of the tread belt (Pan, “when the user stands on a treadmill, running board 3 is pressed down, the sensor movable block 2-2 accepts the force of pressure under the running board 3, the photosensitive element 2-4 receives the lower voltage signal, it back to the hard PCB 2-3”, page 3).
PNG
media_image3.png
692
556
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Pan
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been obvious to incorporate the sensor of Pan with the sensor seat and the photosensitive movable block with the running board into the treadmill of Hsiao as Pan to detect the weight of the user.
Claims 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsiao (PG Patent Publication No. US20220379163A1), in view of Lin (PG Patent Publication No. US20240042269A1). Hsiao discloses the device as substantially claimed above.
Regarding claim 6:
Hsiao discloses the human region, the processor, and the operation space, but fails to explicitly show wherein upon a shift of the human region from a center line of the image frames being larger than or equal to a predetermined distance, the processor is configured to identify that the operation space is not occupied by any user.
Lin, from the same field of endeavor, teaches upon a shift of the human region from a center line of the image frames being larger than or equal to a predetermined distance, the processor is configured to identify that the operation space is not occupied by any user (see abstract and “Referring to FIG. 4A, the processor 130 determines that a person bounding box B1 is not located within a central area Z1 of a sensing image Img_1, so the processor 130 determines that the runner is not detected”, paragraph [0027]; the broadest reasonable interpretation of a predetermined distance of the claim, the shift seen in FIG. 4A below shows this predetermined distance).
PNG
media_image4.png
312
321
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Lin
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the control unit of Hsiao to be able to also determine if the operation space is not occupied by any user with a horizontal shift, as taught by Lin, because both Hsiao and Lin disclose the same overall function of adjusting the speed of the treadmill based on the position of a user on the treadmill for the safety of the user.
Regarding claim 9:
Hsiao discloses upon identifying that the operation space is not occupied by any user during a tread belt of the base being running, the processor is configured to stop the tread belt ( “the control unit 5 is able to execute the image photographing step S1 and the falling analysis step S3. When the falling analysis step S3 generates the second monitoring output (meaning that the maximum height change of the runner 9 within the predefined time is greater than the predefined height difference), it means that the runner 9 might have fallen down. Accordingly, the control unit 5 is able to control the driving unit 2 to control the rotational speed of the driving roller 13, in order to reduce the rotational speed of the driving roller 13 and to stop it gradually, or allow the driving roller 13 to stop immediately, thereby preventing the runner 9 from being caught in the gap between the running belt 15 and one of the side rails 12 due to continuous movement of the running belt 15”, paragraph [0039-0040]).
Hsiao fails to explicitly show the processor being configured to raise an alarm.
Lin teaches the processor being configured to raise an alarm (see paragraph [0029]; As the processor of Lin is comparable to the control unit of Hsiao, the warning of Lin teaches the processor being configured to raise an alarm).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the control unit of Hsiao to be able to raise an alarm like that of Lin as both Hsiao and Lin both disclose the same overall function of controlling the speed of the treadmill depending on the position of the exerciser for his/her own safety.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsiao (PG Patent Publication No. US20220379163A1), in view of Simonetti (PG Patent Publication No. US20090259121A1). Hsiao as modified discloses the device as substantially claimed above.
Regarding claim 10:
Hsiao fails to show the treadmill further comprises another light sensor configured to detect a moving speed of the tread belt, and the processor is further configured to determine exercise performance of a current user according to a variation of the moving speed.
Simonetti, from the same field of endeavor, teaches a light sensor configured to detect a moving speed of the tread belt ( “The flywheel 402 is connected to a drive roller 404 with a belt 406. Drive roller 404 may serve as a support for belt 111, whereby the drive roller 404 may be adapted to cause rotation of belt 111 and belt 111 may be adapted to rotate about drive roller 404”, paragraph 0036, “Treadmill speed feedback is provided by an optical sensor 410 mounted adjacent to the flywheel 402”, paragraph 0038, and “an optical sensor adapted to monitor a speed of rotation of said belt”, claim 21; The optical sensor of Simonetti teaches the other light sensor of the claimed invention. The arrangement of the belt around the drive roller which is connected to the flywheel, and the optical sensor being positioned adjacent to the flywheel, in the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, the optical sensor of Simonetti is shown to be under the belt. See FIG. 4 below).
PNG
media_image5.png
286
482
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Simonetti
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the optical sensor of Simonetti with the treadmill of Hsiao as Hsiao already discloses how to control the speed of the treadmill but does not explain how the speed of the treadmill is known or detected, Simonetti simply provides how to detect the speed of the treadmill.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsiao (PG Patent Publication No. US20220379163A1), in view of Watterson (PG Patent Publication No. US20220342969A1). Hsiao discloses the device as substantially claimed above.
Regarding claim 12:
Hsiao discloses the tread belt (running belt 15), and the wakeup method further comprises: prior to the motion being detected, not performing the occupancy detection of the base using the optical sensing chip (As noted above in claim 11, the step S2 of Hsiao shows the occupancy detection of the claimed invention. Image photographing step S1 is required before step S2 is performed, which shows the motion detection of the claimed invention).
Hsiao fails to explicitly show wherein in the idle state, the console is turned off and a tread belt of the base stops running.
Watterson, from the same field of endeavor, teaches, in the idle state, the console is turned off and a tread belt of the base stops running (Watterson, “While the treadmill 1000 is in a standby mode, the movable portions discussed above may be locked to prevent movement. In some embodiments, the lock may be a physical lock. For example, the lock may be a physical obstruction (e.g., a brake, a rod inserted into a hole or a detent) on the pulleys, the tread belt 1038, the motor, the lift mechanism 1044, any other movable portion, and combinations thereof. In some embodiments, the lock may be an electrical lock. For example, the motor may have an electrical circuit, and the circuit to power the motor may be closed”, paragraph 0124; The standby mode of Watterson teaches the console being turned off).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the control unit of Hsiao to be in the standby mode disclosed by Watterson as both Hsiao and Watterson disclose the overall function of controlling a treadmill based on the presence of a user. Moreover, Hsiao simply discloses the input of the command results in the running belt of Hsiao being expected to be activated for rotation. This modification is obvious as Watterson provides more specifics regarding the console and the belt when the command is inputted.
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minocha (International Patent Publication No. WO2017066527A1), in view of Dharur (U.S. Patent No. US10937169B2).
Regarding claim 16:
Minocha discloses a fall detection method of a treadmill, the treadmill comprising a console (see FIG. 8 below) and an optical sensing chip ( “The sensor 3 is capable of detecting a position of a user of the treadmill. The sensor 3 can be, for example, an ultrasonic sensor, an optical sensor, radar sensor, an infra-red sensor, or a capacitive sensor”, page 4), the fall detection method comprising: waking up the console by occupancy detection of the base, which is configured to identify whether the base is occupied or not, to prevent the treadmill from being accidentally woken up ( “The processor 1 can be programmed to activate the output device 4 to output a signal indicative of the state the person relative to the treadmill. For example, the processor 1 can be programmed to cause the output device 4 to visually display a green signal when the person is correctly positioned on the treadmill, a yellow signal when the person is on the treadmill but incorrectly positioned, and a red signal when the person is off the treadmill”, page 5; In the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, the visual display of the colored signals based on the correct position of the user on the treadmill shows the waking up the console by occupancy detection. The visual display of the colored signals show the waking up of the console by occupancy detection being configured to prevent the treadmill from being accidentally woken up, lacking any other structural or functional limitations); entering an operating state and performing occupancy detection of the base using the optical sensing chip ( “The processor 1 is configured to receive signals from the sensor 3, the signals being indicative of the position of a person relative to the treadmill. The processor 1 is programmed to interpret the signals from the sensor 3 in order to determine whether the person is in a desired position relative to the treadmill, for example, whether the person is in a "safe" position correctly positioned on the treadmill, or off the end of the treadmill, or somewhere in between”, page 5; In the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed invention, the treadmill of Minocha being on shows the operating state of the claimed invention. The processor interpreting signals from the sensor of Minocha in order to determine if the person is safe or off the treadmill shows the performance of occupancy detection of the claimed invention); upon the base not being occupied by any user for a first time interval, controlling the console to raise a confirm message ( “The processor 1 is also connected to an output device 4. The output device 4 can, for example, provide a visual, audio and/or haptic output to a user or another person or persons… The processor 1 can be programmed to activate the output device 4 to output a signal indicative of the state the person relative to the treadmill. For example, the processor 1 can be programmed to cause the output device 4 to visually display a green signal when the person is correctly positioned on the treadmill, a yellow signal when the person is on the treadmill but incorrectly positioned, and a red signal when the person is off the treadmill… Similarly, the processor 1 could be programmed to cause the output device to sound an audible alarm when the user goes from correctly positioned on the treadmill to incorrectly positioned on the treadmill, or when a user exits the treadmill”, page 5; In the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, the output device of Minocha displaying a red signal when the person is off the treadmill shows the raising of a confirm message of the claimed invention upon the base not being occupied); and upon the confirm message not being cancelled for a second time interval, leaving the operating state and raising an alarm ( “The processor 1 can also be programmed to provide an alert to an external device when the position of the user changes from correctly positioned on the treadmill to incorrectly positioned on the treadmill, or when a user exits the treadmill… The processor 1 can transmit such a signal immediately, or the signal can be delayed by a predetermined amount of time. If the signal is delayed, the user can be able to prevent the signal from being sent, for example, if the user exited the treadmill intentionally, and there is no need to send an alert signifying a potentially dangerous situation”, page 5, and “The remote notification contact can be sent automatically immediately or after a predetermined amount of time. Alternatively, the output can be canceled based on local or remote instructions to override the remote notification, such as can occur if the user has voluntarily ended an exercise session and safely exceeds the set undesired distance by exiting the exercise environment prior to switching off the device”, page 6; In the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, the delayed signal shows the raising of the alarm of the claimed invention).
PNG
media_image6.png
271
393
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Minocha
Minocha fails to explicitly show sequentially performing motion detection, by calculating a correlation between sequentially captured image frames.
Dharur, a teaching reference showing a similar problem of processing image frames, teaches sequentially performing motion detection by calculating a correlation between the image frames (Dharur, “For subsequent frames occurring after the first frame in the sequence of frames, instead of again performing object detection (e.g., generating a machine learning-based inference), the motion-assisted object detection process can determine motion characteristics of the subsequent frames. For example, motion vectors can be computed between a previous and a current frame (e.g., between the first frame and a frame 2, between a frame 2 and a frame 3, or the like). In one illustrative example, the motion vectors can be computed using optical flow between frames (e.g., using an optical flow API). The motion characteristics (e.g., motion vectors or other motion information) can be used as a motion based trigger to determine when to perform object detection for a frame. For example, if the motion vectors between a current frame and a previous frame indicate a change in movement (or an amount of movement) between frames that is above a certain motion threshold, object detection can be performed on a next frame (or in some cases on the current frame). Otherwise, if the motion vectors do not indicate a change above the motion threshold, the processed previous frame and the motion vectors between the previous and next frame (or the current frame in some cases) can be used to generate the processed version of the next frame (or the current frame). For example, the motion vectors can be used to determine where the bounding regions in the next frame (or the current frame) should be located relative to the bounding regions in the previous output frame”, col. 2, line 47-col. 3, line 6).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified how the processor of Minocha interprets the signals from the sensor, specifically the optical sensor of Minocha, to specifically utilize the motion-assisted object detection process of Dharur in order to “provide an optimization using motion information to circumvent such limitations, and provide crucial gains in latency, power, and performance” (Dharur, col. 3, lines 19-21). Minocha and Dharur both disclose utilizing a type of camera for motion-assisted object detection, and Minocha fails to provide the details of how the optical sensor processes the receives images, making this modification obvious.
Regarding claim 17:
Minocha as modified discloses that the confirm message is cancelled by at least one of, identifying, using the optical sensing chip, that the base is occupied by a user within the second time interval, and the console being operated by the user ( “The remote notification contact can be sent automatically immediately or after a predetermined amount of time. Alternatively, the output can be canceled based on local or remote instructions to override the remote notification, such as can occur if the user has voluntarily ended an exercise session and safely exceeds the set undesired distance by exiting the exercise environment prior to switching off the device”, page 6; In the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed invention, the local instructions to override the remote notification shows the console being operated by the user).
Regarding claim 18:
Minocha as modified discloses that the optical sensing chip is arranged on the console (Minocha, FIGS. 5 and 8), and the optical sensing chip comprises a light sensor for acquiring the image frames ( “the sensor can be or include (a) an ultrasonic sensor, (b) an infrared sensor, (c) an optical sensor, (d) a radar sensor, or (e) a capacitive sensor”; Infrared sensors include optical sensing chips which include light sensors for acquiring the image frames) toward a front of the console (see FIGS. 5 and 8 below), and a bottom edge of a field of view of the light sensor is parallel to a horizontal line (In the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, the dashed lines extending out of sensor A in FIG. 8 below shows the field of view of the light sensor of the claimed invention, the horizontal dashed line seen below in FIG. 8 shows the bottom edge of the claimed invention, and the treadmill belt of Minocha shows the horizontal line of the claimed invention).
PNG
media_image7.png
270
381
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
271
393
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Minocha
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Minocha (International Patent Publication No. WO2017066527A1), in view of Dharur (U.S. Patent No. US10937169B2), as applied in claim 16 above, and further in view of Hsiao (PG Patent Publication No. US20220379163A1). Minocha as modified discloses the invention as substantially disclosed above.
Regarding claim 19:
Minocha as modified fails to explicitly teach using the optical sensor chip to determine a face region in the image frames using a face detection algorithm.
Hsiao, from the same field of endeavor, teaches using the optical sensor chip to determine a face region in the image frames using a face detection algorithm (the control unit of Hsiao analyzing whether the image obtained at S1 contains the runner shows, in the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, shows the human detection of the claimed invention. In light of the functional language of the claim, the control unit requires an algorithm in order to analyze the images from the camera, thereby showing, in the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, the face detection algorithm) determine a human region in the image frames using a human detection algorithm (the control unit of Hsiao analyzing whether the height of the runner is greater than the predefined height shows, in the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, the face detection of the claimed invention as head portion is being analyzed by Hsiao. The control unit requires an algorithm in order to analyze whether the height of the runner is greater than the predefined height, thereby showing, in the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, the human detection algorithm) , and perform the occupancy detection according to the face region and the human region in the image frames ( “If the height of the runner 9 is greater than the predefined height, a first monitoring output is generated”, paragraph [0033]; The first monitoring output of Hsiao is only generated once the runner is determined to be a predefined height based on step S2 of Hsiao, which shows the occupancy detection of the claimed invention).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the processor of Minocha to specifically process the images received by the optical sensor with the process of disclosed by Hsiao as both Minocha and Hsiao both provide a response to an unsafe position of a user on a treadmill. Moreover, Minocha fails to provide specifics regarding the sensor processing images from an optical sensor, which Hsiao provides, thereby making this modification obvious.
Regarding claim 20:
Minocha as modified disclose that the optical sensing chip identifies that the base is not occupied by a user upon at least one of following conditions being true, the image frames not containing the face region and the human region, the face region not within the human region (See rejection of claim 19 above, as stated in Hsiao “the control unit 5 is able to analyze a head position of the runner 9 based on the image photographed by the camera 31 and to analyze the height of the runner 9 based on the head position of the runner 9… The activation analysis step S2 is to analyze whether the image obtained at the image photographing step S1 containing the runner 9, and to analyze whether a height of the runner 9 is greater than the predefined height. If the height of the runner 9 is greater than the predefined height, a first monitoring output is generated. In this embodiment, the activation analysis step S2 is to analyze whether the image obtained contains an object, and then to analyze whether a head portion of the object in the image can be identified. Next, the head position of the runner 9 is determined, following which the height of the runner 9”; Step S2 of Hsiao shows the condition of the claimed invention wherein the face region is not within the human region), a height of the human region being smaller than a half of the field of view, a shift of the human region from a center line of the image frames being larger than or equal to a predetermined distance, and a bottom edge of the human region not aligned with a bottom edge of the image frames.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection relies on Hsiao (US20220379163A1) to teach the newly added limitations in question.
Applicant specifically references page 10 of Minocha, asserting “Claim 16 is amended, solely for the purpose of expediting prosecution, to recite, among other features, "waking up the console by sequentially performing motion detection, by calculating a correlation between sequentially captured image frames, and occupancy detection of the base, which is configured to identify whether the base is occupied or not, to prevent the treadmill from being accidentally woken up". Applicant respectfully submits that Minocha fails to describe, expressly or inherently, this claimed feature”.
This argument is not persuasive. In the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, the visual display of the colored signals based on the correct position of the user on the treadmill shows the waking up the console by occupancy detection. In light of the functional language of the claim, the visual display of the colored signals shows the waking up of the console by occupancy detection being configured to prevent the treadmill from being accidentally woken up, see the 103 rejection above. Further, Minocha has been modified with reference Dharur.
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 MEGAN M ANDERSON whose telephone number is (313)446-6531. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 6 a.m. -4 p.m. (Arizona).
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, LoAn Jimenez can be reached at 571-272-4966. 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.
/Megan Anderson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3784
Prosecution Insights