DETAILED 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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's response to the last Office Action, filed on 2/23/2026 has been entered and made of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1 and 20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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.
Claims 1, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Dependent claims 2-19, and 21 are rejected based on their dependency.
Claims 1, 20 recites the limitation "the image to be provided in the virtual space.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 13, 14, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2011/0025834) in view of Takahashi et al. (US 2019/0022492).
Regarding claim 1, Chen teaches electronic device for providing content in a virtual space, the electronic device comprising: memory storing instructions (see para. 0086); and
at least one processor communicatively coupled to the memory (see para. 0086),
wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to: obtain an image including a user, obtain, from the image, first position information indicating positions of a plurality of feature points indicating a specific part of a body of the use (see para. 0035-0037, Chen discusses extracting a foreground image and for extracting an outline),
determine a preset response pose from among a plurality of response poses (see para. 0059, Chen discusses training data set to include various human postures),
check whether a posture of the user included in the image corresponds to the preset response pose, based on the first position information (see figure 9, para. 0071-0075, Chen discusses posture matching the user input posture with training data set that include various human postures).
Chen does not expressly disclose generate the content combined with the image to be provided in the virtual space, based on whether the posture of the user corresponds to the preset response pose, and based on generating the content to be provided in the virtual space, provide the content in the virtual space.
However, Takahashi teaches generate the content combined with the image to be provided in the virtual space, based on whether the posture of the user corresponds to the preset response pose (see figure 25, para. 0258-0260, Takahashi discusses generating combined content by matching the position and posture captured by a camera with prestored position and posture data), and
based on generating the content to be provided in the virtual space, provide the content in the virtual space (see figure 25, para. 0246, 0253, Takahashi discusses virtual video output based on matching the position and posture captured by a camera with prestored position and posture data).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Chen with Takahashi to derive at the invention of claim 1. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform user pose related content generation.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Chen this manner in order to improve content generation that is adapted to a user’s posture therefore providing information that is relevant to the user’s physical position. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Chen, while the teaching of Takahashi continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of calculating a person’s posture in an image and providing content that is adapted to the calculated posture. The Chen and Takahashi systems perform pose detection, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Regarding claim 2, Chen teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, further cause the electronic device to: obtain second position information indicating positions of a plurality of feature points indicating a specific part of a posture corresponding to the preset response pose, and check whether the user's posture corresponds to the preset response pose, by comparing the first position information with the second position information (see claim 3, para. 0050, 0071-0075, Chen discusses detecting a head and body by dividing the human body, and posture matching the user input posture with training data set that include various human postures).
The same motivation of claim 1 is applied to claim 2. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Chen with Takahashi to derive at the invention of claim 2. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform user pose related content generation.
Regarding claim 3, Chen teaches wherein the specific part of the body of the user comprises an upper body of the user (see claim 3, para. 0050, 0071-0075, Chen discusses detecting a head and body by dividing the human body).
The same motivation of claim 1 is applied to claim 3. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Chen with Takahashi to derive at the invention of claim 3. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform user pose related content generation.
Claim 13 is rejected as applied to claim 1 as pertaining to a corresponding method.
Claim 14 is rejected as applied to claim 2 as pertaining to a corresponding method.
Claim 20 is rejected as applied to claim 1 as pertaining to a corresponding non-transitory computer-readable recording medium.
Claims 4, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2011/0025834) in view of Takahashi et al. (US 2019/0022492) in view of Yerushalmy et al. (US 11,861,944).
Regarding claim 4, Chen and Takahashi do not expressly disclose wherein the image comprises a plurality of images including the user, and wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, further cause the electronic device to: obtain respective pieces of first position information from the plurality of images, obtain average position information based on the respective pieces of first position information, wherein the respective pieces of first position information comprise a plurality of position values indicating the positions of the plurality of feature points, and the average position information comprises an average position value indicating an average position of the plurality of feature points, the average position value being obtained by averaging the plurality of position values, and check whether the user's posture corresponds to the preset response pose, based on the average position information.
However, Yerushalmy teaches wherein the image comprises a plurality of images including the user, and wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, further cause the electronic device to: obtain respective pieces of first position information from the plurality of images (see col. 10 lines 19-40, Yerushalmy discusses capturing images of persons with pose points),
obtain average position information based on the respective pieces of first position information, wherein the respective pieces of first position information comprise a plurality of position values indicating the positions of the plurality of feature points, and the average position information comprises an average position value indicating an average position of the plurality of feature points, the average position value being obtained by averaging the plurality of position values (see col. 10 lines 41-57, Yerushalmy discusses averaging the distance values between corresponding points), and
check whether the user's posture corresponds to the preset response pose, based on the average position information (see col. 10 lines 36-57, Yerushalmy discusses different video data may indicate that at the times associated with the points, the bodies of the respective users had achieved similar poses).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Chen and Takahashi with Yerushalmy to derive at the invention of claim 4. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform pose related content generation.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Chen and Takahashi this manner in order to improve content generation that is adapted to a user’s posture therefore providing information that is relevant to the user’s physical position based on average measurement information. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Chen and Takahashi, while the teaching of Yerushalmy continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of calculating a user’s posture using average location information in an image and providing content that is adapted to the calculated posture. The Chen, Takahashi, and Yerushalmy systems perform pose detection, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Claim 15 is rejected as applied to claim 4 as pertaining to a corresponding method.
Claims 5-10, 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2011/0025834) in view of Takahashi et al. (US 2019/0022492) in view of Park et al. (US 2014/0028567).
Regarding claim 5, Chen and Takahashi do not expressly disclose wherein the preset response pose comprises at least one of a clapping pose, a cheering pose, an arm-opening pose, a dancing pose, or a one-hand-raising pose. However, Park teaches wherein the preset response pose comprises at least one of a clapping pose, a cheering pose, an arm-opening pose, a dancing pose, or a one-hand-raising pose(see para. 0104, 0130, Park discusses identifying a one-hand raising gesture and a standby gesture).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Chen and Takahashi with Park to derive at the invention of claim 5. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform pose related content generation.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Chen and Takahashi this manner in order to improve content generation that is adapted to a user’s posture therefore providing information that is relevant to the user’s physical position based on a set of reference postures. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Chen and Takahashi, while the teaching of Park continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of calculating a user’s posture using reference postures for comparison and providing content that is adapted to the calculated posture. The Chen, Takahashi, and Park systems perform pose detection, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Regarding claim 6, Park teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, further cause the electronic device to: determine a degree of response related to a degree of response of the user to the content, based on whether the user's posture corresponds to the preset response pose (see para. 0104, 0130, Park discusses identifying a one-hand raising gesture and a standby gesture),
wherein the degree of response comprises: a first response degree indicating a high level of degree of response, and a second response degree indicating a low level of degree of response, when it is checked that the user's posture corresponds to the at least one of the clapping pose, the cheering pose, the arm-opening pose, the dancing pose, or the one hand-raising pose, obtain the first response degree, in correspondence to the user's posture (see para. 0104, 0130, Park discusses identifying a one-hand raising gesture and a standby gesture); and
generate the content to be provided in the virtual space, based on the degree of response (see figure 3, Park discusses displaying virtual content based on the identified user gesture).
The same motivation of claim 5 is applied to claim 6. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Chen and Takahashi with Park to derive at the invention of claim 6. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform user pose related content generation.
Regarding claim 7, Park teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, further cause the electronic device to, when it is checked that the user's posture corresponds to a standby pose, obtain the second response degree, in correspondence to the user's posture (see para. 0104, 0130, Park discusses identifying one-hand raising gesture and a standby gesture).
The same motivation of claim 5 is applied to claim 7. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Chen and Takahashi with Park to derive at the invention of claim 7. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform user pose related content generation.
Regarding claim 8, Park teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, further cause the electronic device to: when the user's posture corresponds to the preset response pose, obtain at least one of pose variance information, pose count information or pose duration information, which are related to the user's posture; and determine the degree of response, based on the at least one of the pose variance information, the pose count information, or the pose duration information (see para. 0119, Park discusses identifying one-hand raising gesture that contains pose position variance).
The same motivation of claim 5 is applied to claim 8. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Chen and Takahashi with Park to derive at the invention of claim 8. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform user pose related content generation.
Regarding claim 9, Park teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, further cause the electronic device to: obtain a plurality of images respectively including a plurality of users, determine a plurality of degrees of response related to degrees of response of the plurality of users to the content, based on the plurality of images, and generate the content comprising at least one image selected from among the plurality of images, based on the plurality of degrees of response (see figure 3, figure 3, figure 11, para. 0135, Park discusses displaying an image based on the hand gesture detected).
The same motivation of claim 5 is applied to claim 9. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Chen and Takahashi with Park to derive at the invention of claim 9. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform user pose related content generation.
Regarding claim 10, Park teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, further cause the electronic device to: generate a data stream comprising data about the content, position information of a first region in the content, and the selected at least one image, and transmit the generated data stream to an external device such that the external device displays the content and displays the selected at least one image among the plurality of images in the first region in the content (see, para. 0077-0080, Park discusses transmission to an external display device through).
The same motivation of claim 5 is applied to claim 10. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Chen and Takahashi with Park to derive at the invention of claim 10. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform user pose related content generation.
Claim 16 is rejected as applied to claim 8 as pertaining to a corresponding method.
Claim 17 is rejected as applied to claim 9 as pertaining to a corresponding method.
Claim 18 is rejected as applied to claim 10 as pertaining to a corresponding method.
Claims 11, 12, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2011/0025834) in view of Takahashi et al. (US 2019/0022492) in view of Ning et al. (US 2021/0090284).
Regarding claim 11, Chen and Takahashi do not expressly disclose wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, further cause the electronic device to: obtain, from the image, link information indicating a relationship between adjacent feature points among the plurality of feature points, based on the first position information, and check whether the posture of the user included in the image corresponds to the preset response pose, based on the link information.
However, Ning teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, further cause the electronic device to: obtain, from the image, link information indicating a relationship between adjacent feature points among the plurality of feature points, based on the first position information (see para. 0122, Ning discusses link information indicating relationship between points, distance and weighting data of human keypoints), and check whether the posture of the user included in the image corresponds to the preset response pose, based on the link information (see para. 0125, Ning discusses determining a match based on the link information).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Chen and Takahashi with Ning to derive at the invention of claim 11. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform pose related content generation.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Chen and Takahashi this manner in order to improve content generation that is adapted to a user’s posture therefore providing information that is relevant to the user’s physical position based on a set of reference postures. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Chen and Takahashi, while the teaching of Ning continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of calculating a user’s posture using reference postures for comparison and providing content that is adapted to the calculated posture. The Chen, Takahashi, and Ning systems perform pose detection, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Regarding claim 12, Ning teaches wherein the plurality of feature points comprise a first feature point and a second feature point that are adjacent to each other, and a third feature point adjacent to the second feature point, and wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, further cause the electronic device to: obtain first link information indicating a relationship between the first feature point and the second feature point, and second link information indicating a relationship between the second feature point and the third feature point, based on the image (see para. 0122, Ning discusses link information indicating the distance and weighting data of human keypoints), and
check whether the user's posture corresponds to the preset response pose, based on a result of applying a first weight value to the first link information and applying a second weight value to the second link information (see para. 0122, Ning applying weighting data to the human keypoints related to keypoint linking data).
The same motivation of claim 1 is applied to claim 12. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Chen and Takahashi with Ning to derive at the invention of claim 12. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform user pose related content generation.
Claim 19 is rejected as applied to claim 11 as pertaining to a corresponding method.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2011/0025834) in view of Takahashi et al. (US 2019/0022492) in view of Harza et al. (US 2017/0123487).
Regarding claim 21, Takahashi teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, further cause the electronic device to: providing the content in the virtual space (see figure 25, para. 0246, 0253, Takahashi discusses virtual video output based on matching the position and posture captured by a camera with prestored position and posture data).
Chen and Takahashi do not expressly disclose when the posture of the user does not correspond to the preset response pose, determine a second response degree indicating a low degree of response of the user to the content. However, Harza teaches when the posture of the user does not correspond to the preset response pose, determine a second response degree indicating a low degree of response of the user to the content (see para. 0230, Harza discusses if a poor match, is updated as an unclassified posture).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Chen and Takahashi with Harza to derive at the invention of claim 21. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform pose related content generation.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Chen and Takahashi this manner in order to improve content generation that is adapted to a user’s posture therefore providing information that is relevant to the user’s physical position based on a set of reference postures. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Chen and Takahashi, while the teaching of Harza continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of calculating a user’s posture using reference postures for comparison and providing content that is adapted to the calculated posture. The Chen, Takahashi, and Harza systems perform pose detection, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNY A CESE whose telephone number is (571) 270-1896. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, 9am – 4pm.
If attempts to reach the primary examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gregory Morse can be reached on (571) 272-3838. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Kenny A Cese/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2663
Prosecution Insights