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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species II.B (encompassing claims 1 and 11-15) in the reply filed on 8/26/2025 is acknowledged. Thus, claims 2-10 are withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1 and 11-15 are being examined as fully disclosed below.
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.
Claims 1 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (mathematical calculations) without significantly more. The flow chart in MPEP 2106, Subject Matter Eligibility Test For Products and Processes, will be referred to establish ineligible subject matter.
Regarding claim 1, Step 1: the claim recites an information processing apparatus, which would be categorized as a process under the four recognized statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One: However, the claim is further directed to the abstract ideas (mathematical calculations) of identifying an intersection with a first type of line segment intersects with the body surface of the target in the base image, which are mathematical calculations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). Step 2A Prong Two: Additional elements include generic computer elements (memory and a processor). The addition of generic computer elements amounts to merely an instruction to apply the abstract idea using generic computer elements, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). Step 2B: The additional claim elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as explained above. Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
Regarding claim 11-12, additional limitations do not amount to significantly more and therefore the claims are all ineligible.
Regarding claims 13-15, the rationale provided in the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. In addition, the apparatus of claim 1 corresponds to the method of claim 13, the non-transitory computer-readable recording medium of claim 14, and the system of claim 15, and performs the steps disclosed herein. Therefore the claims are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 11, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Leroyer (US Pub 20190362506).
Regarding claim 1, Leroyer discloses an information processing apparatus comprising a processor and a memory with instructions thereon, wherein the memory holds the instructions upon execution by the processor (Leroyer Figure 8 and Par. [0063], computer system includes processor and memory), cause the processor to:
estimate, based on a result of sensing a surface of a body of a target, a plurality of joint points corresponding to joints in the body of the target (Leroyer Figure 4 and Par. [0046], focal points are identified on the subject corresponding to terminal regions on the body);
set a first type line segment for at least one of the plurality of joint points in a two dimensional base image that represents the body surface of the target, the first type line segment passing through the joint point (Leroyer Figure 4 and Par. [0046], connectors are used to intersect with the focal points as a 2D image over the identified subject); and
identify an intersection at which the first type line segment intersects with the body surface of the target in the base image (Leroyer Figure 4 and Par. [0045], an intersection is identified when the subject is performing a movement to determine the type of sub-position being identified).
Regarding claim 11, Leroyer discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the instructions upon execution by the processor, cause the processor to associate one or more of the intersections with at least one region of a human body (Leroyer Figure 4 and Par. [0046], intersections identified on the subject correspond to terminal regions on the body).
Regarding claims 13-15, the rationale provided in the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. In addition, the apparatus of claim 1 corresponds to the method of claim 13, the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 14, and the system of claim 15 (additionally within claim 15, Leroyer discloses a first computer and a second computer used to acquire a result of sensing from the second computer, Leroyer Fig. 8 and Par. [0062]), and performs the steps disclosed herein.
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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leroyer in view of Zhang (US Pub 20220114786).
Regarding claim 12, Leroyer does not disclose where Zhang teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the result of sensing the body surface of the target is multiple pieces of point cloud data with different shooting directions, and the base image is generated based on a result of aligning the multiple pieces of point cloud data in a three dimensional manner (Zhang Fig. 1, 6 and Par. [0027], [0048], the human body model is sensed to generate a point cloud with multiple coordinates of the point clouds and the human body in order to render the model in a three dimensional space).
It would have been obvious, before the effective date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the body surface sensing of the target of Leroyer with the teachings of Zhang to include multiple pieces of point cloud data to generate the base image with the point cloud data in a three dimensional manner in order to better obtain the detailed shape of the scanned human body and improve aligning with the data captured.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is: Fleishman (US Pub 20160335790).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Vincent Rudolph whose telephone number is (571)272-8243. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM - 3:30 PM.
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.
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.
/VINCENT RUDOLPH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2671
Prosecution Insights