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 .
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.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims are directed to “a measurement data processing program”. However, the claims do not define a computer readable medium that contains instructions to be a Non-transitory functional descriptive material and is thus non-statutory for that reason (i.e., “When functional descriptive material is recorded on some non-transitory computer-readable medium it becomes structurally and functionally interrelated to the medium and will be statutory in most cases since use of technology permits the function of the descriptive material to be realized”). Moreover, a “program” is neither a process (“action”), nor machine, nor manufacture, nor composition of matter (i.e., tangible “thing”) and therefore non-statutory. Such claimed “measurement data processing program” can be a transitory medium such as signal, wave etc. that does not define any structural and functional interrelationships between the computer program and other claimed elements of a computer, which permit the computer program’ s functionality to be realized. As such, “program”/software, not claimed as embodied/encoded in computer-readable medium and is not statutory because the “program”/software is not capable of causing functional change in the computer.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because
the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims 1, 11 and 13 recite a measuring data acquisition unit to acquire measurement data of a target, where a processor estimates a skeleton of a living body , estimates a measurement condition related to the measurement data using an estimation result of the skeleton, obtains a similarity between the measurement condition and an assumed condition assumed in advanced and selects measurement data related to evaluation of a state of the target based on the similarity. The claims recite mathematical concepts of “estimates a skeleton of a living body… based on measurement data”, “estimates a measurement condition related to the measurement data …” “ obtains a similarity between the measurement condition and an assumed condition assumed in advanced”.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements like a processing unit to process the measurement data (mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component) and selects measurement data related to evaluation of ta state of the target based in the similarity (mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component) MPEP 2106.5(f).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements as disclosed do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as they are mere insignificant extra solution activity in combination of generic computer functions being implemented with generic computer elements in a high level of generality to perform the disclosed abstract idea.
Claim 2 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 2 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional limitation of “wherein the measurement data is data obtained by measuring walking of the target in a time series”, which is merely elaborating on the abstract idea, by further specifying an additional mathematical calculation, therefore, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 3 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 3 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional limitation of “wherein the measurement condition includes a traveling direction and/or a distance of the walking”, which is merely elaborating on the abstract idea, by further specifying an additional mathematical calculation, therefore, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 4 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 4 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional limitation of “wherein the measurement data includes imaging data obtained by imaging the target with a camera, and the measurement condition includes an installation height and/or an imaging direction of the camera”, which is merely elaborating on the abstract idea, by further specifying an additional mathematical calculation, therefore, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 5 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 5 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional limitation of “wherein the measurement data further includes depth data associated with the imaging data”, which is merely elaborating on the abstract idea, by further specifying an additional mathematical calculation, therefore, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 6 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 6 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional limitation of “further comprising: an output control unit configured to comparatively display the measurement condition and the assumed condition”, which is merely elaborating on the abstract idea, by further specifying an additional mathematical calculation, therefore, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 7 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 7 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional limitation of “wherein the processing unit obtains the similarity by using a value obtained by normalizing a difference between the measurement condition and the assumed condition”, which is merely elaborating on the abstract idea, by further specifying an additional mathematical calculation, therefore, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 8 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 8 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional limitation of “wherein the processing unit performs the selection by comparing the similarity with a similarity threshold”, which is merely elaborating on the abstract idea, by further specifying an additional mathematical calculation, therefore, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 9 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 9 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional limitation of “wherein the processing unit selects measurement data related to evaluation of a health state of the target”, which is merely elaborating on the abstract idea, by further specifying an additional mathematical calculation, therefore, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 10 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 10 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional limitation of “wherein the selected data is used for training of a machine learning model and/or evaluation of the health state by the machine learning model”, which is merely elaborating on the abstract idea, by further specifying an additional mathematical calculation, therefore, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 12 similar to claims 1, 11 and 13 recite mathematical concepts in limitations “skeleton estimation step… based on measurement data”, “condition estimation step …related to the measurement data …” “ similarity calculation step”.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are mere instructions to apply an exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements as disclosed do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as they are mere instructions to “apply” the abstract ideas, which cannot provide an inventive concept. See 2106.05(f).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: measurement data acquisition unit, processing unit, output control unit, in claims 1-11.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Published specification describes in paragraph [0035] a CPU performing all the processes.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 8, 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fuller et al. (US 2011/0314381 A1).
With respect to Claim 1, Fuller’381 shows a measurement system (figure 2 a target recognition, analysis, and tracking system 10) comprising:
a measurement data acquisition unit (figure 2 image camera component 22) configured to acquire measurement data of a target (plurality of data including: paragraph [0036] describes cameras to capture video (time series) and paragraphs [0087] and [0089] walking; paragraph [0037] imaging data from a camera; paragraph [0036] depth data of an object captured in the scene); and
a processing unit (figure 2 processor 32) configured to process (paragraph [0044] determining whether a suitable target may be included in the depth image, converting the suitable target into a skeletal representation or model of the target, or any other suitable instruction) the measurement data, wherein the processing unit estimates a skeleton of a living body (figure 4) that is the target based on the measurement data (paragraph [0044] and [0047] Skeletal mapping techniques may then be used to determine various spots on that user's skeleton, joints of the hands, wrists, elbows, knees, nose, ankles, shoulders, and where the pelvis meets the spine), estimates a measurement condition (plurality of conditions including: paragraph [0089] walking direction with corresponding vector, paragraph [0042] cameras that view a scene) related to the measurement data using an estimation result of the skeleton (paragraph [0044]), obtains a similarity between the measurement condition and an assumed condition assumed in advance (paragraphs [0124]-[0125] gesture recognition engine 190 may output both an identified gesture and a confidence level which corresponds to the likelihood that the user's position/movement corresponds to that gesture), and
selects measurement data related to evaluation of a state of the target based on the similarity (paragraphs [0124]-[0125] a confidence level has been determined as to whether a given pose or motion satisfies a given gesture rule, the gesture recognition engine 190 then determines in step 668 whether the confidence level is above a predetermined threshold for the rule under consideration).
With respect to Claim 2, Fuller’381 shows the measurement system according to claim 1, wherein the measurement data is data obtained by measuring walking of the target in a time series (paragraph [0036] describes cameras to capture video (time series), paragraph [0087] walking direction).
With respect to Claim 3, Fuller’381 shows the measurement system according to claim 2, wherein the measurement condition includes a traveling direction and/or a distance of the walking (paragraph [0087]-[0089] walking direction).
With respect to Claim 4, Fuller’381 shows the measurement system according to claim 1, wherein the measurement data includes imaging data obtained by imaging the target with a camera (paragraph [0037] imaging data from a camera), and the measurement condition includes an installation height and/or an imaging direction of the camera (paragraph [0042] cameras that view a scene).
With respect to Claim 5, Fuller’381 shows the measurement system according to claim 4, wherein the measurement data further includes depth data associated with the imaging data (paragraph [0036] depth data).
With respect to Claim 6, Fuller’381 shows the measurement system according to claim 1, further comprising: an output control unit configured to comparatively display the measurement condition and the assumed condition (paragraph [0033] capture device 20 may cooperate to render an onscreen character 23 on display 14 which is at least partially controlled by the user 18. As shown in FIG. 1B, the onscreen character 23 mimics the movements of the user 18 in real world).
With respect to Claim 8, Fuller’381 shows the measurement system according to claim 1, wherein the processing unit performs the selection by comparing the similarity with a similarity threshold (paragraphs [0124]-[0125] a confidence level has been determined as to whether a given pose or motion satisfies a given gesture rule, the gesture recognition engine 190 then determines in step 668 whether the confidence level is above a predetermined threshold for the rule under consideration).
With respect to Claims 11-13, rejection analogous to those presented for claim 1, are applicable.
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.
Claims 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuller et al. (US 2011/0314381 A1) in view of Dreifus (US 2013/0253375 A1).
With respect to Claim 7, Fuller’381 does not specifically shows the measurement system according to claim 1, wherein the processing unit obtains the similarity by using a value obtained by normalizing a difference between the measurement condition and the assumed condition.
Dreifus’375 shows obtain the similarity by using a value obtained by normalizing a difference between the measurement condition and the assumed condition (paragraph [0002] observed detection of parameters related to the specific performance of particular tasks to provide an immediate computed result of measured movements compared against an adjusted and normalized predicted baseline value set ).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to modify Fuller’381 to include obtain the similarity by using a value obtained by normalizing a difference between the measurement condition and the assumed condition method taught by Dreifus’375. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to improve the system’s ability to be able to improve early detection of health issues (paragraph [0003]).
With respect to Claim 9, Fuller’381 fails to specifically show the measurement system according to claim 1, wherein the processing unit selects measurement data related to evaluation of a health state of the target.
Dreifus’375 shows the measurement system according to claim 1, wherein the processing unit selects measurement data related to evaluation of a health state of the target (paragraph [0001] multi-dimensional automated computer-guided neuromuscular performance measurement of various aspects of human function including lower limbs and lower back to provision early detection screening and prediction of health performance related issues. Said invention as well can provide real-time diagnostic feedback to healthcare professionals such as for the screening, detection and treatment of limb maladaptation, and predicting propensity for injury or other neuromuscular aspects. ).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to modify Fuller’381 to include processing unit selects measurement data related to evaluation of a health state of the target method taught by Dreifus’375. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to improve the system’s ability to be able to improve early detection of health issues (paragraph [0003]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuller et al. (US 2011/0314381 A1) in view of in view of Dreifus (US 2013/0253375 A1) and further in view of Goldstein et al. (US 2022/0057519 A1).
With respect to Claim 10, Fuller’381 and Dreifus’375 does not specifically show the measurement system according to claim 9, wherein the selected data is used for training of a machine learning model and/or evaluation of the health state by the machine learning model.
Goldstein’519 shows the measurement system according to claim 9, wherein the selected data is used for training of a machine learning model and/or evaluation of the health state by the machine learning model (paragraphs [0106]-[0107], figures 4-5 training a machine learning with the data).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to modify Fuller’381 and Dreifus’375 to include the selected data is used for training of a machine learning model and/or evaluation of the health state by the machine learning model method taught by Goldstein’519. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to improve the system’s ability to be able to improve analyzing data by using machine learning models (paragraph [0115]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ellwein et al. (US 2020/0273200 A1): paragraphs [0068]-[0069] Re-identification is technically beneficial because it ensures that the correct skeletons are being used in the determination of localization parameters for the cameras 102A-C.
Yoshida et al. (US 2022/0383653 A1): figure 3 and paragraph [0073] acquires images of a person in order to perform classification and retrieval from a skeleton structure and stores the acquired images in the database 110. The image acquisition unit 101 acquires, for example, a plurality of images captured in a predetermined monitoring period and performs the following processing for all the persons included in the plurality of images.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IRIANA CRUZ whose telephone number is (571)270-3246. The examiner can normally be reached 10-6.
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, Akwasi M. Sarpong can be reached at (571) 270-3438. 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.
/IRIANA CRUZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681