DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1, 3-12, and 14-15 are currently pending.
Claims 2 and 13 have been cancelled.
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 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:
An electronic device
A camera unit
An intelligent processing unit
A target detection module
A posture identification module
A target posture capturing module
A human face identification module
in claims 1 and 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.
Response to Arguments
I. 35 U.S.C. 112(b)
Examiner agrees the current amendment overcomes the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), the rejection is withdrawn.
II. 35 U.S.C. 101
Applicant argues the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. Examiner disagrees.
First Applicant argues that the amended claims using artificial intelligence and requires image comparison and processing and therefore cannot be a mental process. See Remarks page 5. Examiner disagrees. The claim requires the use of a “target detection module of an intelligent processing unit via artificial intelligence,” the artificial intelligence is recited at a high level of generality. There are not details to the structure of the AI or the training used to generate the AI, therefore, this amounts to a generic computer processing component and fails to remedy the abstract idea of claim 1. Additionally, a comparison of images can be a mental process, a person is capable of looking at a series of images and identifying an object in the image as required by the claim.
Second, Applicant argues the newly amended claim is incorporated into a practical application because of the step of detecting a human face for a visibility threshold. See Remarks page 6. Examiner disagrees, as detailed in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 04/20/2026, these limitations amount to a mental process and fail to integrate the claim into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, at this time, Examiner maintains all rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101.
III. 35 U.S.C 103
Examiner agrees the current amendment overcomes the prior art of record and all rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 are withdrawn.
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, 3-12, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to the mental process of capturing postures without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, under step 2A prong 1, the claim recites the mental steps:
identifying an object: identifying the preset object in an initial image taken by a camera unit using a target detection module of an intelligent detection module via artificial intelligence, and detecting the preset object being visible in the initial image for a target duration within the segment duration;
detecting postures: detecting, using a posture identification module of the intelligent processing unit via artificial intelligence, the preset object’s body transforming from a first posture to a second posture, wherein the first posture and the second posture are two different postures of lying supine, lateral recumbent, lying prone, sitting, crawling, standing, and embracing, the first posture lasts for a first posture duration within the target duration, and the second posture lasts for a second posture duration within the target duration; and
capturing target postures: capturing from the initial image, using a target posture capturing module of the intelligent processing unit, a target posture transformation video that lasts for the segment duration and uploading the target posture transformation video to cloud storage when a capture requirement is met, wherein the capture requirement is met when the first posture duration and the second posture duration each reach a duration threshold within the target duration,
wherein a step of detecting a human face precedes the step of capturing target postures and entails detecting a human face being visible for a facial visibility duration within the target duration using artificial intelligence, and the capture requirement includes the facial visibility duration reaching a duration threshold.
Under step 2A prong 2, the claim recites additional elements:
an electronic device reading an executable code to identify a preset object using artificial
a camera unit
These amount to generic computer processing components and fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Additionally, under step 2B, this fails to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 10, this follows the same logic as claim 1 above, with additional limitation:
A terminal device in communication connection with the electronic device for executing the method of claim 1, wherein the terminal device comes with an executable application, executes the application to connect to the cloud, and downloads the target posture transformation video for playing.
This amounts to generic computer processing components and fails to integrate the claim into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 11, this follows the same logic as claim 1 above with additional limitations:
a camera unit for taking an initial image;
an intelligent processing unit electrically connected to the camera unit to receive the initial image
These amount to generic computer processing components and fails to integrate the claim into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 14, this follows the same logic as claim 11 above, with additional limitation:
A terminal device in communication connection with the electronic device for executing the method of claim 11, wherein the terminal device comes with an executable application, executes the application to connect to the cloud, and downloads the target posture transformation video for playing.
This amounts to generic computer processing components and fails to integrate the claim into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 15, the claim follows the same logic as claim 1 above with additional limitation:
A non-transient computer-readable recording medium for storing a plurality of executable codes, the executable codes being read by an electronic device to allow the electronic device to allow the electronic device to identify a preset object using artificial intelligence and perform image processing to capture target postures of the preset object
These amount to generic computer processing components and fail to integrate the claim into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 3, the claim adds the order of the postures, this is a mental process and fails to remedy the abstract idea of claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, the claim adds in an order of the postures, this is a mental process and fails to remedy the abstract idea of claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, the claim adds in the calculations of the posture, this is a mental process and fails to remedy the abstract idea of claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, the claim adds in the calculations of the posture, this is a mental process and fails to remedy the abstract idea of claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, the claim adds limitations of defining postures, this is a mental process and fails to remedy the abstract idea of claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, the claims adds the duration thresholds are cumulative, this is a mental process and fails to remedy the abstract idea of claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, the claim adds the calculation of confidence scores and a face frame, this is a mental process and fails to remedy the abstract idea of claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, the claim adds a physical host, this is generic computer processing components and fails to remedy the abstract idea of claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-12, and 14-15 are not rejected under the prior art and would be allowable if the above rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 were overcome.
Regarding claim 1, neither the closest known prior art, nor any reasonable combination thereof, teaches:
wherein a step of detecting a human face precedes the step of capturing target postures and entails detecting a human face being visible for a facial visibility duration within the target duration using artificial intelligence, and the capture requirement further includes the facial visibility duration reaching a duration threshold.
Claims 3- 9 depend from claim 1 and would therefore also be allowable.
Claim 10 incorporates claim 1 by reference and would therefore also be allowable.
Claims 11 and 15 are similar in scope to claim 1 and would be allowable for the reasons discussed above.
Claim 12 depends from claim 11 and would therefore also be allowable.
Claim 14 incorporates claim 11 by reference and would therefore also be allowable.
Conclusion
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 Molly K Wilburn whose telephone number is (571)272-3589. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-4pm.
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, Emily Terrell can be reached at (571) 270-3717. 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.
/Molly Wilburn/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2666
Prosecution Insights