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 .
DETAILED ACTION
INFORMATION DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/19/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS
Claim Status
The examiner acknowledges the amendment of claims 1, 6, 10-11, & 15-16 and the cancellation of claims 2 filed 1/23/2026.
Double Patenting
Examiner has reviewed applicant arguments. As applicant requests that rejection be held in abeyance until the conclusion of prosecution on the merits, provisional double patenting rejection is maintained.
35 USC 101 Rejection
The examiner acknowledges the amendment of claims 1, 6, 10-11, & 15-16 and the cancellation of claims 2 filed 1/23/2026. Applicant submits claims are not directed to a mental process, and instead improve computer vision and pose estimation by reducing hallucinated key points through claimed first branch, second branch arrangement and thresholded acceptance/rejection of pose estimates. Applicant also submits claim improve a technical field rather than merely automating human analysis. After carefully reviewing applicant amendments, 35 USC 101 guidance and claim limitations, examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response, examiner submits claims still broadly recite receiving image data, segmenting the image, extracting feature information, determining a likelihood, determining a pose estimate, comparing that the likelihood to a threshold, and conditionally storing or rejecting a result.
Examiner classifies claim as evaluating image information and making classification/decision based on that information. The additional elements like computing device, processor, memory neural network, data structure and GUI remain generic computer implementation. The claims do not recite a specific asserted improvement to computer operation itself, such as a new neural network architecture, a specific training procedure, a specialized memory arrangement, or a particular image processing mechanism that improves the functioning of the computer.
In view of above arguments, examiner submits rejection is sufficient and respectfully maintained.
35 USC 102 Rejection
Applicant amendments filed (01/23/2026) have been carefully considered. After carefully reviewing prior art references and claim limitations, examiner submits arguments are sufficient to overcome grounds of rejection.
DOUBLE PATENTING
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1, 6 & 10-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication 2024/0046690. This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
As to claim 1, instant application discloses receiving a digital image of a scene that includes an individual performing a physical activity in an environment; segmenting the digital image into contiguous regions of pixels, each of which is representative of a separate one of multiple segments of the digital image; extracting multiple feature maps for the digital image, wherein each feature map represents content in a corresponding one of the multiple segments of the digital image; and for each of the multiple feature maps, applying a neural network so as to: determine, via a first branch of the neural network, a likelihood that the corresponding one of the multiple segments includes a given body part, determine, via a second branch of the neural network, an estimated pose of the given body part in the corresponding one of the multiple segments, compare the likelihood to a threshold value programmed in memory of the computing device, in response to a determination that the likelihood does not exceed the threshold value, reject the estimated pose, and in response to a determination that the likelihood does exceed the threshold value, accept the estimated pose by storing, in a data structure, an indication that the given body part in the corresponding one of the multiple segments is in the estimated pose.
(U.S. Publication 2024/0046690 - Claim 1)
As to claim 6, instant application discloses receiving image data that is representative of a digital image of a scene that includes an individual performing a physical activity; extracting feature maps from segments of the image data, wherein each segment is representative of a contiguous region of pixels in the digital image; and for each of the feature maps, applying a neural network so as to: determine a likelihood that a corresponding one of the segments includes a given body part, determine an estimated pose of the given body part in the corresponding one of the segments, responsive to a determination that the likelihood does not exceed a threshold value, reject the estimated pose, and responsive to a determination that the likelihood does exceed the threshold value, store an indication that the given body part is in the estimated pose in a data structure. (U.S. Publication 2024/0046690 - Claim 9)
As to claim 10, instant application discloses wherein to store the indication, the estimated pose of the given body part is programmatically associated with a portion of the scene. (U.S. Publication 2024/0046690 - Claim 4)
As to claim 11, instant application discloses wherein the operations further comprise: determining, based on the estimated pose, a therapeutic activity being performed by the individual; and displaying, via a graphic user interface on the computing device, an indication of the therapeutic activity. (U.S. Publication 2024/0046690 - Claim 5)
As to claim 12, instant application discloses wherein the operations further comprise: determining, based on the estimated pose, an instruction for improving a technique associated with the estimated pose; and displaying, via a graphic user interface on the computing device, the instruction. (U.S. Publication 2024/0046690 - Claim 6)
As to claim 13, instant application discloses wherein the neural network comprises a series of convolutional layers and a series of connected layers of decreasing size. (U.S. Publication 2024/0046690 - Claim 7)
As to claim 14, instant application discloses wherein a last layer of the neural network is a sigmoid activation function. (U.S. Publication 2024/0046690 - Claim 8)
As to claim 15, instant application discloses obtaining a digital image of a scene that includes an individual performing a physical activity in an environment; applying a neural network to each of multiple segments of the digital image in an independent manner, so as to: determine a measure that is indicative of a likelihood that a corresponding one of the multiple segments includes a given body part, such that multiple measures are determined for the multiple segments; and determine an estimated pose of the given body part in the corresponding one of the multiple segments, such that multiple estimated poses are determined for the multiple segments; and for each of the multiple segments, storing, in a data structure, an indication that the given body part is in a corresponding one of the multiple poses if a corresponding one of the multiple measures exceeds a threshold value. (U.S. Publication 2024/0046690 – Claims 9 & 16)
As to claim 16, instant application discloses wherein said storing comprises: programmatically associating the corresponding estimated pose of the given body part with a time at which the digital image is generated. (U.S. Publication 2024/0046690 - Claim 4)
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 & 3-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to as ineligible under subject eligibility test. In the Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes (Federal Register, Vol. 79, No. 241, dated Tuesday, December 16, 2014, page 74621), The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional device elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea.
Claims 1, 6 & 15
Step 1
This step inquires “is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?” Yes,
Claim 1 – “Method” is a process.
Claims 6 & 15 - “Devices” or “Non-Transitory CRM” are machines.
Step 2A - Prong 1
This step inquires “does the claim recite an abstract idea, law or natural phenomenon”. This claim appears to directed to an abstract idea.
The limitation of “receiving a digital image of a scene that includes an individual performing a physical activity in an environment; extracting multiple feature maps for the digital image, wherein each feature map represents content in a corresponding one of multiple segments of the digital image; for each of the multiple feature maps, applying a neural network so as to: determine, via a first branch of the neural network, a likelihood that the corresponding one of the multiple segments includes a given body part, determine, via a second branch of the neural network, an estimated pose of the given body part in the corresponding one of the multiple segments, compare the likelihood to a threshold value programmed in memory of the computing device, and responsive to a determination that the likelihood exceeds the threshold value, store, in a data structure, an indication that the given body part in the corresponding one of the multiple segments is in the estimated pose.”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (e.g. mathematical concepts, mental processes or certain methods of organizing human activity) but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “neural network, processor, memory” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “neural network, processor, memory” language, “receiving, extracting, applying, determine, estimating, comparing” in the context of this claim encompasses covers performance of the limitation in the mind (e.g. mathematical concepts, mental processes or certain methods of organizing human activity).
STEP 2A – PRONG 1 - CONCLUSION
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2
This step inquires “does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites three additional element – using a “neural network, processor, memory” to perform “receiving, extracting, applying, determine, estimating, comparing” steps. The “neural network, processor, memory” are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor) receiving a digital image of a scene that includes an individual performing a physical activity in an environment; extracting multiple feature maps for the digital image, wherein each feature map represents content in a corresponding one of multiple segments of the digital image; for each of the multiple feature maps, applying a neural network so as to: determine, via a first branch of the neural network, a likelihood that the corresponding one of the multiple segments includes a given body part, determine, via a second branch of the neural network, an estimated pose of the given body part in the corresponding one of the multiple segments, compare the likelihood to a threshold value programmed in memory of the computing device, and responsive to a determination that the likelihood exceeds the threshold value, store, in a data structure, an indication that the given body part in the corresponding one of the multiple segments is in the estimated pose.) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
STEP 2A – PRONG 2 - CONCLUSION
Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The critical inquiry here is does the claim recite additional elements that amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception? The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a “neural network, processor, memory” to perform “receiving, extracting, applying, determine, estimating, comparing” steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims
As to claim 3, this claim is directed to generic computer components (“data structure in device memory”) and insignificant extra-solution activity (“storing results”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 4, this claim is directed to generic computer components (“Multi-Branch neutral network head per class”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 5, this claim is directed to generic computer components (“multi-head classification/regression arrangement”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 7, this claim is directed to generic computer components (“standard CV/ML training workflow; bounding boxes; dataset curation”), mental process (“looking at images; marking landmarks; drawing boxes; moving them until they exclude positions and pick crops”) and insignificant extra-solution activity (“receiving images and adding to a training dataset”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 8, this claim is directed to mental process (“annotation of 2D points”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 9, this claim is directed to mental process (“estimate 3D pose from multi-view cues”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 10, this claim is directed to generic computer components (“programmatic association/linking in memory”), mental process (“noting a pose at a region location”) and insignificant extra-solution activity (“association/tagging”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 11, this claim is directed to generic computer components (“computing device; display”), mental process (“inferring for example a squat/rehab move then displaying”) and insignificant extra-solution activity (“displaying the indication”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 12, this claim is directed to generic computer components (“GUI text/prompt generation”), mental process (“For example, a human coach can observe pose and provide “straighten knee”) and insignificant extra-solution activity (“displaying the instruction”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 13, this claim is directed to generic computer components (“Conventional CNN and FC topology”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 14, this claim is directed to generic computer components (“standard activation function”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 16, this claim is directed to generic computer components (“timestamping in memory; routine metadata handling”), mental process (“For example, a person can note time alongside observation”) and insignificant extra-solution activity (“Timestamping/logging”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 17, this claim is directed to generic computer components (“Image sensor”) and insignificant extra-solution activity (“Generating/collecting the image”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
CONCLUSION
No prior art has been found for claims 1 & 3-17 in their current form.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Stephen P Coleman whose telephone number is (571)270-5931. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8AM-5PM.
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 Moyer can be reached at (571) 272-9523. 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.
Stephen P. Coleman
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2675
/STEPHEN P COLEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2675
Prosecution Insights