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 .
Status of Claims
In the preliminary amendment of 12/18/2023, Applicant amended claims 3, 7, 11, 14-15, 18-21, 23, 25-27 and 29-30 and canceled claims 4, 6, 8-10, 12-13, 22, 24 and 28. Therefore claims 1-3, 5, 7, 11, 14-21, 23, 25-27 and 29-30 are pending.
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.
Claim(s) 1,11 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adelsberger, (WO 2014/114967 A1)(hereinafter Adelsberger) in view of Kerber et al. (US Pub. 2021/0200311 A1)(hereinafter Kerber) in view of Mochizuki et al. (US Pub. 2024/0013410 A1)(hereinafter Mochizuki).
Regarding claim 1, Adelsberger discloses a method for motion capture, (Adelsberger, Page, 5, Lines 1-9; ... autonomous Motion Capture Sensor System The invention refers to a system that captures and transmits movements of objects (humans, animals, etc.) in real-time, )
the method comprising: coupling ultra-wideband (UWB) tags to a body; (Adelsberger, Figs. 1 and 6 and Page 5, Lines 10-19; The system consists of a number of nodes (la, lb, ...) arranged on an object (human, animal, other object). Page 8, Line 38-Page 9, Line 8; ... the communication protocol, UWB or similar). )
constructing a distance matrix, (Adelsberger, Page 10, Lines 7-21; ...the distance measurements enable the system to generate a graph structure where the edges are the inter-node distances and the vertices are the nodes....)
wherein the constructing includes: successively configuring each UWB tag as an anchor tag; (Adelsberger, Page 8, Lines 30-36; ...each node is transmitting at a defined sequence in time (clocking pattern) a set of data (node id, time stamp, IMU data, distance matrix to all other nodes)...; Page 10, Lines 7-21; Each node sends an ultrasonic signal at a specific point in time predetermined by the clocking pattern fixed at start-up by the wireless communication protocol.)
determining distances between the anchor tag and other UWB tags; (Adelsberger, Page 10, Lines 7-21; The signal is received by all other nodes that measure their distance to that specific node.)
and updating the distance matrix with the determined distances until each UWB tag has been configured as the anchor tag; (Adelsberger, Page 10, Lines 7-21 These distance measurements enable the system to generate a graph structure where the edges are the inter-node distances and the vertices are the nodes... After a short time period during which the system has been used dynamically, i.e. the nodes have been moved, the system has estimated the exact node positions relative to the underlying skeletal (body or object) structure.)
reconstructing a skeletal topology of the body based on the distance matrix, (Adelsberger, Page 7, Lines 5-9; The CMP can then determine each node's position on the underlying physical structure (articulated skeleton model) as depicted in Figure 4.; Page 10, Lines 7-21; After a short time period during which the system has been used dynamically, i.e. the nodes have been moved, the system has estimated the exact node positions relative to the underlying skeletal (body or object) structure) While Adelsberger discloses determining position relative to the underlying skeletal structure, Adelsberger does not specifically disclose reconstructing a skeletal topology. Kerber, in the same field of endeavor, however, discloses reconstructing a skeletal topologies. (Kerber, Fig. 7 and ¶0044; during calibration in the first sensor cluster, the distance between the MS10 motion sensor (right hand) to MS11 (right forearm) is measured. ... These segmented groups create the virtual skeletal structure which is a reference for the movements of the proxy 202.) Consequently, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed subject matter, to implement Adelsberger with the known technique of reconstructing a skeletal topology, as taught by Kerber, in order to allow for the accurate detection of the movement of various parts of the body. (Kerber, ¶0045.)
the skeletal topology including nodes corresponding to three-dimensional (3D) positions of the UWB tags; (Adelsberger, Page 5, Lines 3-9;... a computing device (PC, mobile device or other) which further processes the data - for example to analyze, visualize or animate the movements in a virtual 3D environment and / or to trigger signals depending on the pattern of movement;)
Adelsberger in view of Kerber, does not specifically disclose, and repeating the constructing and the reconstructing to generate a set of skeletal topologies, the set of skeletal topologies arranged in time to capture a motion of the body. Mochizuki in the same field of endeavor, however, teaches employing the functionality. (Mochizuki, ¶047, ... the time-series data of skeleton data is used for form improvement in sports, or is used for such applications as VR (Virtual Reality) or AR (Augmented Reality). Further, avatar video in which the motion of a user is mimicked is generated with use of the time-series data of skeleton data...) Consequently, at the time of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed subject matter, to implement, Kerber with the known technique of repeating the construction and the reconstruction to generate a set of skeletal topologies, as taught by Mochizuki, in order to mimick the motion of a user. (Mochizuki ¶0047)
Regarding claim 11, which depends from claim 1, Adelsberger discloses further comprising: capturing calibration data using the a hub device communicatively coupled to the UWB tags, (Adelsberger, Page 8, Line 38-Page 9, Line 8; ... communication that allows each node to transfer data back to the 'master' node's wireless chip)
the calibration data including identification information of each UWB tags. (Adelsberger, Page 8, Lines 30-36; each node is transmitting at a defined sequence in time (clocking pattern) a set of data (node id, time stamp, IMU data, distance matrix to all other nodes) to the CMP )
the calibration data corresponding to a topology of the UWB tags in a fixed coordinate system; (Adelsberger, Page 6, Lines 14-25; The IMU data in combination with the distances allow to determine the 3D locations of all the nodes (la, lb, ...) with respect to a local coordinate system.)
and reconstructing the skeletal topology based on the distance matrix and the calibration data. (Kerber, Fig. 7 and ¶0044; during calibration in the first sensor cluster, the distance between the MS10 motion sensor (right hand) to MS11 (right forearm) is measured... These segmented groups create the virtual skeletal structure which is a reference for the movements of the proxy 202.)
Regarding claim 14, which depends from claim 1, Kerber discloses further comprising transmitting the motion of the body to an augmented reality application, (Kerber, Fig. 2 and ¶0027 ; The motion sensor mainboard 106 collects the motion data from the motion sensors 104 via a wired or wireless connection or any other sufficient means for sending and collecting data. The visor 108 displays information about the proxy controller suit 100 and the proxy environment and collects information from the user such as auditory commands, motion data, or any other data provided by the user or the user's environment.)
the motion of the body captured in real time. (Adelsberger, Page 4, Lines 1-8; the system offers the following novel benefits: ...it allows for real-time processing, transmission and representation of the motion capture data;)
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adelsberger, in view of Kerber in view of Mochizuki in view of Turner et al. (WO 2015/187991 1A)(hereinafter Turner)
Regarding claim 2, claim 2 depends from claim 1. As already discussed the limitations of claim 1 are obvious over Adelsberger, in view of Kerber in view of Ishii. Concerning claim 2, Adelsberger, in view of Kerber in view of Mochizuki do not disclose wherein the body includes a first object and a second object. Turner, in the same field of endeavor, however teaches wherein the body includes a first object (Turner, Figs.4A-4C and ¶0119; FIG. 4A shows a player 402 wearing equipment having attached RF tags 102)
and a second object, (Turner, Figs.4A-4C and ¶0124; FIG. 4C shows an example of a ball 410 having tags 102 attached or embedded in accordance with some embodiments.)
a first portion of the UWB tags (Turner, Figs.4A-4C and ¶0116; Here, the RF tag may include a UWB transmitter and a separate receiver ;)
coupled to the first object and a second portion of the UWB tags coupled to the second object. (Turner, Figs.4A-4C and ¶0126; subsequent to RF tags 102 and/or sensors 312 of FIGS. 4A-4C are attached to objects, they may be correlated to such objects;) Consequently, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed subject matter, to implement Adelsberger with the known technique of the body including a first object and a second object, a first portion of the UWB tags coupled to the first object and a second portion of the UWB tags coupled to the second object, as taught by Turner, in order to provide a system capable of providing sports performance analytics. (Turner, ¶0044 and ¶0119)
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adelsberger, in view of Kerber in view of Mochizuki in view of Shin et al. (US Pub. 2022/0244367 A1)(hereinafter Shin)
Regarding claim 3, claim 3 depends from claim 1. As already discussed the limitations of claim 1 are obvious over Adelsberger, in view of Kerber in view of Ishii. Concerning claim 3, while Kerber teaches employing augmented reality glasses, Visor 108, Kerber does not disclose that a UWB tag is integrated into the augmented reality glasses and therefore does not disclose, wherein a first UWB tag of the UWB tags is integrated with a mobile computing device augmented reality (AR) glasses worn or carried by a user. Shin, in the same field of endeavor, however teaches employing the limitation. (Shin, Fig. 1 and ¶0006; ... the UWB tag device can be an element of augmented reality (AR) glasses) Consequently, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed subject matter, to implement Kerber with the known technique of providing UWB tags integrated with a mobile computing device augmented reality (AR) glasses worn or carried by a user, as taught by Shin, in order to implement the on body communication system of Kerber with a low power wireless communication protocol. (Shin, ¶0037)
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adelsberger, in view of Kerber in view of Mochizuki in view of Chakraborty et al. (US Pub. 2021/0185491 A1)(hereinafter Chakraborty).
Regarding claim 5, claim 5 depends from claim 1. As already discussed the limitations of claim 1 are obvious over Adelsberger, in view of Kerber in view of Ishii. Concerning claim 5, while Adelsberger discloses a distance matrix, Adelsberger does not specific state that the distance matrix is Euclidean, and therefore does not disclose, wherein the distance matrix is a Euclidean distance matrix. Chakraborty in the same field of endeavor, however teaches employing Euclidean distance matrices. (Chakraborty, ¶0083; If all possible ranges between nodes are available, computing the relative localization is straight-forward in a static environment. The edge weights of the graph are maintained in the form of an adjacency matrix, EDM (a.k.a. Euclidean Distance Matrix), where each entry represents a measured range between two nodes.) Consequently, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed subject matter, to implement Adelsberger with the known technique of employing Euclidean Distance Matrices, as taught by Chakraborty, since it is straight forward and accurate existing technique for completing network topologies. (Chakraborty, ¶0059 and ¶0083)
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adelsberger, in view of Kerber in view of Mochizuki in view of Teague et al. (US Pub. 2012/0220233 A1)(hereinafter Teague)
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 depends from claim 1. As already discussed the limitations of claim 1 are obvious over Adelsberger, in view of Kerber in view of Ishii. Concerning claim 15, Adelsberger does not discloses wherein determining distances between the anchor tag and other UWB tags includes: measuring round-trip times of handshake signals transmitted between the anchor tag and the other UWB tags. Teague in the same field of endeavor, however, teaches the technique. (Teague, ¶0064; one node may produce range information associated with another node based on a signal round-trip-time rather than a time-of-arrival. This may eliminate clock differences between the two nodes from the range estimate, and thus may remove the requirement to synchronize nodes, which may dramatically simplify the setup; ¶0071; a first circuit of the body-mounted node 104 may perform ranging with the other body-mounted node 104 using UWB radio technology, ... the processor 204 may perform the ranging with the other body-mounted node 104 based on a round-trip time of a signal exchanged between the node and the other node.) Consequently, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed subject matter, to implement Adelsberger with the known technique of determining distances between the anchor tag and other UWB tags includes: measuring round-trip times of handshake signals transmitted between the anchor tag and the other UWB tags, as taught by Teague in order to provide a simple setup. (Teague, ¶0064 )
Claim(s) 16, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adelsberger, in view of Teague in view of Kerber.
Regarding claim 16, Adelsberger discloses a system for motion capture (Adelsberger, Page, 5, Lines 1-9; ... autonomous Motion Capture Sensor System The invention refers to a system that captures and transmits movements of objects (humans, animals, etc.) in real-time, )
comprising: a first set of ultra-wideband (UWB) tags coupled to a first body, (Adelsberger, Figs. 1 and 6 and Page 5, Lines 10-19; The system consists of a number of nodes (la, lb, ...) arranged on an object (human, animal, other object).The nodes (la, lb, ...) are placed on those extremities of the object whose movements are intended to be captured (refer to Figure 1; Page 8, Line 38-Page 9, Line 8; establishing communication that allows each node to transfer data back to the 'master' node's wireless chip at a clocking pattern defined by the communication protocol...UWB or similar). )
wherein UWB tags in the first set are configurable to take turns performing a handshake protocol with each other to determine elements of a distance matrix for the first set, the elements corresponding to pair-wise distances between the UWB tags; (Adelsberger, Page 10, Lines 7-21; Each node sends an ultrasonic signal at a specific point in time predetermined by the clocking pattern fixed at start-up by the wireless communication protocol. The signal is received by all other nodes that measure their distance to that specific node. These distance measurements enable the system to generate a graph structure where the edges are the inter-node distances and the vertices are the nodes....) While Adelsberger discloses the tags taking turns, i.e. each node at a specific time, to determine distance, Adelsberger does not disclose performing a handshake protocol. Teague, however, teaches employing the limitation. (Teague, ¶0064; one node may produce range information associated with another node based on a signal round-trip-time rather than a time-of-arrival; ¶0071; a first circuit (e.g., the processor 204) of the body-mounted node 104 may perform ranging with the other body-mounted node 104 using UWB radio technology, ... the processor 204 may perform the ranging with the other body-mounted node 104 based on a round-trip time of a signal exchanged between the node and the other node.) Consequently, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed subject matter, to implement Adelsberger with the known technique of performing handshake protocol, as taught by Teague in order to provide a simple setup. (Teague, ¶0064 )
and a hub device communicatively coupled to one or more of the UWB tags, the hub device including a processor configured by software instructions (Adelsberger, Figs. 1 and 6 and ; Page 8, Lines 30-36; ... each node is transmitting at a defined sequence in time (clocking pattern) a set of data (node id, time stamp, IMU data, distance matrix to all other nodes) to the CMP.; Page 8, Line 38-Page 9, Line 8; establishing communication that allows each node to transfer data back to the 'master' node's wireless chip)
to: reconstruct a skeletal topology of the first body based on the distance matrix. (Adelsberger, Page 7, Lines 5-9; The CMP can then determine each node's position on the underlying physical structure (articulated skeleton model) as depicted in Figure 4.; Page 10, Lines 7-21; After a short time period during which the system has been used dynamically, i.e. the nodes have been moved, the system has estimated the exact node positions relative to the underlying skeletal (body or object) structure) While Adelsberger discloses determining position relative to the underlying skeletal structure, Adelsberger does not specifically disclose reconstructing a skeletal topology. Kerber, in the same field of endeavor, however, discloses reconstructing a skeletal topologies. (Kerber, Fig. 7 and ¶0044; during calibration in the first sensor cluster, the distance between the MS10 motion sensor (right hand) to MS11 (right forearm) is measured. ... These segmented groups create the virtual skeletal structure which is a reference for the movements of the proxy 202.) Consequently, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed subject matter, to implement Adelsberger with the known technique of reconstructing a skeletal topology, as taught by Kerber, in order to allow for the accurate detection of the movement of various parts of the body. (Kerber, ¶0045.)
Regarding claim 18, which depends from claim 16, Adelsberger discloses wherein the processor of the hub device is further configured by software instructions to: receive elements of the distance matrix from each UWB tag;. (Adelsberger, Figs. 1 and 6 and ; Page 8, Lines 30-36; ..each node is transmitting at a defined sequence in time (clocking pattern) a set of data (node id, time stamp, IMU data, distance matrix to all other nodes) to the CMP.; Page 8, Line 38-Page 9, Line 8; establishing communication that allows each node to transfer data back to the 'master' node's wireless chip ...These distance measurements enable the system to generate a graph structure where the edges are the inter-node distances and the vertices are the nodes... After a short time period during which the system has been used dynamically, i.e. the nodes have been moved, the system has estimated the exact node positions relative to the underlying skeletal (body or object) structure.)
and generate the distance matrix from the elements. (Adelsberger, Page 10, Lines 7-21 These distance measurements enable the system to generate a graph structure where the edges are the inter-node distances and the vertices are the nodes... After a short time period during which the system has been used dynamically, i.e. the nodes have been moved, the system has estimated the exact node positions relative to the underlying skeletal (body or object) structure.)
Regarding claim 19, which depends from claim 16, Adelsberger discloses wherein the processor of the hub device is further configured by software instructions to: receive a distance matrix generated by one of the UWB tags. (Adelsberger, Page 8, Line 38-Page 9, Line 8; establishing communication that allows each node to transfer data back to the 'master' node's wireless chip; Page 10, Lines 7-21 These distance measurements enable the system to generate a graph structure where the edges are the inter-node distances and the vertices are the nodes... After a short time period during which the system has been used dynamically, i.e. the nodes have been moved, the system has estimated the exact node positions relative to the underlying skeletal (body or object) structure.)
Regarding claim 20, which depends from claim 16, Teague discloses wherein: the UWB tags communicate the handshake protocol using ultra-wideband communication; (Teague, ¶0064; one node may produce range information associated with another node based on a signal round-trip-time rather than a time-of-arrival.; ¶0071; a first circuit (e.g., the processor 204) of the body-mounted node 104 may perform ranging with the other body-mounted node 104 using UWB radio technology, ... the processor 204 may perform the ranging with the other body-mounted node 104 based on a round-trip time of a signal exchanged between the node and the other node.)
and the hub device is communicatively coupled to the UWB tags using Bluetooth communication. (Adelsberger, Figs. 1 and 6 and Page 8, Line 38-Page 9, Line 8; establishing communication that allows each node to transfer data back to the 'master' node's wireless chip)
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adelsberger, in view of Teague in view of Kerber in view of Mochizuki.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 depends from claim 16. As already discussed the limitations of claim 16 are obvious over Adelsberger, in view of Teague in view of Kerber. Concerning claim 17, Adelsberger in view of Teague in view of Kerber does not specifically disclose, wherein the processor of the hub device is further configured by software instructions to: generate a set of skeletal topologies from a plurality of distance matrices generated at regular intervals. Mochizuki in the same field of endeavor, however, teaches employing the functionality. (Mochizuki, ¶047, ... the time-series data of skeleton data is used for form improvement in sports, or is used for such applications as VR (Virtual Reality) or AR (Augmented Reality). Further, avatar video in which the motion of a user is mimicked is generated with use of the time-series data of skeleton data...) Consequently, at the time of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed subject matter, to implement, Kerber with the known technique of repeating the construction and the reconstruction to generate a set of skeletal topologies, as taught by Ishii, in order to mimic the motion of a user. (Mochizuki ¶0047)
Claim(s) 21 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adelsberger, in view of Teague in view of Kerber in view of in view of Shin
Regarding claim 21, claim 21 depends from claim 16. As already discussed, the limitation of claim 16 are obvious over Adelsberger, in view of Teague in view of Kerber. Concerning claim 21, wherein the hub device is augmented-reality glasses that includes a UWB tag that is in the first set of UWB tags, while Adelsberger disclose each UWB node may act as a hub device and Kerber teaches employing augmented reality glasses, Visor 108, Kerber does not disclose the augmented glasses incudes a UWB tag is integrated into the glasses. Shin, however, teaches employing the limitation. (Shin, Fig. 1 and ¶0006; the UWB tag device can be an element of augmented reality (AR) glasses) Consequently, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed subject matter, to implement Kerber with the known technique of UWB tags integrated within a mobile computing device or augmented reality (AR) glasses worn or carried by a user, as taught by Shin, in order to implement the body communication system of Kerber with a low power wireless communication protocol. (Shin, ¶0037)
Regarding claim 23, claim 23 depends from claim 16. As already discussed the limitations of claim 16 are obvious over Adelsberger, in view of Teague in view of Kerber. Concerning claim 23, Adelsberger, in view of Teague in view of Kerber does not disclose a second body and therefore do not disclose comprising: a second set of ultra-wideband tags coupled to a second body. Turner, in the same field of endeavor, however, teaches a second set of ultra-wideband tags coupled to a second body. (Turner, Figs.4A-4C and 0124; FIG. 4C shows an example of a ball 410 having tags 102 attached or embedded in accordance with some embodiments.) Consequently, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed subject matter, to implement Adelsberger with the known technique of wherein the body includes a first object and a second object, a first portion of the UWB tags coupled to the first object and a second portion of the UWB tags coupled to the second object, as taught by Turner, in order to provide a system capable of providing sports performance analytics. (Turner, ¶0044 and ¶0119)
wherein UWB tags in the second set are configurable to take turns, (Adelsberger, Page 10, Lines 7-21; Each node sends an ultrasonic signal at a specific point in time predetermined by the clocking pattern fixed at start-up by the wireless communication protocol. The signal is received by all other nodes that measure their distance to that specific node. These distance measurements enable the system to generate a graph structure where the edges are the inter-node distances and the vertices are the nodes...) While Adelsberger discloses the tags taking turns, i.e. each node at a specific time, to determine distance, Adelsberger does not disclose performing a handshake protocol with each other to determine elements of a second distance matrix for the second set. Teague, however, teaches employing the limitation. (Teague, ¶0064; one node may produce range information associated with another node based on a signal round-trip-time rather than a time-of-arrival; ¶0071; a first circuit (e.g., the processor 204) of the body-mounted node 104 may perform ranging with the other body-mounted node 104 using UWB radio technology, ... the processor 204 may perform the ranging with the other body-mounted node 104 based on a round-trip time of a signal exchanged between the node and the other node.) Consequently, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed subject matter, to implement Adelsberger with the known technique of performing handshake protocol, as taught by Teague in order to eliminate clock differences between devices form the determination of distances. (Teague, ¶0064 )
the second set of UWB tags configured to communicate the second distance matrix to the hub device (Adelsberger, Figs. 1 and 6 and Page 8, Line 38-Page 9, Line 8; establishing communication that allows each node to transfer data back to the 'master' node's wireless chip). )
for reconstruction of a skeletal topology of the second body. (Kerber, Fig. 7 and ¶0044; during calibration in the first sensor cluster, the distance between the MS10 motion sensor (right hand) to MS11 (right forearm) is measured. Next the distance from MS11 (right forearm) to MS12 (right bicep) is measured. ... These segmented groups create the virtual skeletal structure which is a reference for the movements of the proxy 202.)
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adelsberger, in view of Teague in view of Kerber in view of in view of Mochizuki.
Regarding claim 26, claim 26 depends from claim 16. As already discussed the limitations of claim 16 are obvious over Adelsberger, in view of Teague in view of Kerber. Concerning claim 26, Adelsberger, in view of Teague in view of Kerber does not disclose wherein the processor of the hub device is further configured by software instructions to: generate a set of skeletal topologies at regular intervals over time Mochizuki in the same field of endeavor, however, teaches employing the functionality. (Mochizuki, ¶047, ... the time-series data of skeleton data is used for form improvement in sports, or is used for such applications as VR (Virtual Reality) or AR (Augmented Reality). Further, avatar video in which the motion of a user is mimicked is generated with use of the time-series data of skeleton data...) Consequently, at the time of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed subject matter, to implement, Kerber with the known technique of repeating the construction and the reconstruction to generate a set of skeletal topologies, as taught by Ishii, in order to mimick the motion of a user. (Mochizuki ¶0047)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 27 and 29-30 are allowed.
Claims 7 and 25 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Examiner disagrees with the conclusion of the Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority of March 28, 2022 that the limitation “checking a validity of the distance matrix” is obvious in view of Teague, since as indicated in the opinion, and Examiner agrees, that Teague does not specifically disclose “computing a distance matrix,” then Teague also does not and cannot disclose checking the validity of the distance matrix. Nor does the remaining prior art of record disclose “checking the validity of the distance matrix.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEROLD B MURPHY whose telephone number is (571)270-1564. The examiner can normally be reached M-T, Th-F 10am-7pm, W 1pm-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, STEVEM LIM can be reached at 5712701210. 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.
/JEROLD B MURPHY/Examiner, Art Unit 2688
/STEVEN LIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2688