DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements submitted on 05/23/2024 have been considered by the Examiner and made of record in the application file.
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: dynamic gesture recognition module, static gesture recognition module, finite-state machine module, fusing module and post-processing module in claims 11, 13 and 16-18.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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, 7, 11-13 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aliseychik (US 2015/0220153 A1) in view of Domansky (US 2016/0129343 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Aliseychik discloses a method, comprising:
performing a dynamic gesture recognition operation on a window of the frames; (Aliseychik discloses dynamic gesture recognition based on movement over a specified period of time relative to one or more previous images of an image sequence, see paragraphs 58-59.)
performing a static gesture recognition operation on an individual frame among the frames; (Aliseychik discloses that static pose recognition module 114 identifies a particular pose in an input image, where the pose may be a static gesture, and outputs a static pose pattern ID. Aliseychik also teaches that the static pose recognition module is enabled for the current frame, see paragraphs 56, 60 and 89-90.)
applying a result of the static gesture recognition operation to a finite-state machine; (Aliseychik discloses a finite state machine 115 that controls the cursor detector, dynamic gesture detector and static pose recognition module. Aliseychik further discloses that the output of the static pose recognition module 114, including the static pose pattern ID, is applied to a maximization element 600 whose output determines a new state 602 for the finite state machine, see paragraphs 65-66 and 91-94.)
fusing results of the dynamic gesture recognition operation and the finite-state machine; and (Aliseychik discloses combining recognition outputs in a state update module by outputs of the cursor detector 113A, dynamic gesture detector 113B and static pose recognition module 114 are applied to maximization element 600, whose output determines the new finite state machine state. The outputs include the dynamic gesture pattern ID and static pose pattern ID, and the finite state machine state is updated from those outputs, see paragraphs 91-94.).
generating a final recognized gesture based on the fusing. (Aliseychik discloses that the maximization element determines the new FSM state as the cursor detected state, dynamic gesture detected state, or static pose recognition state, based on the non-zero pattern ID for the current frame. This new state becomes the final state or the current frame and serves as the initial state for the next frame, see paragraphs 17-18 and 91-94.)
Aliseychik fails to specifically disclose receiving frames of 3D physical body joints.
In related art, Domansky discloses receiving frames of 3D physical body joints. (Domansky discloses continuously receiving a recorded time series of frames from a motion sensing camera, where each frame comprises a 3D position of each of a plurality of body joints of a patient, see paragraphs 17-18.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Domansky into the teachings of Aliseychik to effectively recognize human gestures using image and motion sensing systems.
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Aliseychik, as modified by Domansky, discloses the claimed invention wherein at least a portion of performing the dynamic gesture recognition operation overlaps in time with at least one of at least a portion of performing the static gesture recognition operation or at least a portion of applying the result the static gesture recognition operation to the finite-state machine. (Aliseychik: paragraph 95)
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Aliseychik, as modified by Domansky, discloses the claimed invention wherein performing the dynamic gesture recognition operation comprises utilizing a lightweight spatio-temporal gesture recognition model. (Aliseychik: paragraphs 58-61 and 67-75)
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Aliseychik, as modified by Domansky, discloses the claimed invention wherein performing post-processing on the result of the static gesture recognition operation before applying to the finite-state machine. (Aliseychik: paragraphs 56-61 and 81)
Claims 4 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aliseychik in view of Domansky and in further view of Levinshtein (US 2020/0320748 A1).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Aliseychik, as modified by Domansky, discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the lightweight spatio-temporal gesture recognition model utilizes a depth-wise separable convolution neural network (DSCNN).
In related art, Levinshtein discloses a depth-wise separable convolution neural network (DSCNN). (paragraph 37)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Levinshtein into the teachings of Aliseychik and Domansky for effective real time processing of video.
Claims 5 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aliseychik in view of Domansky and in further view of Ulutan (US 2023/0144745 A1).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Aliseychik, as modified by Domansky, discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the lightweight spatio-temporal gesture recognition model utilizes Gaussian error linear unit (GELU) activation.
In related art, Ulutan discloses Gaussian error linear unit (GELU) activation. (paragraphs 9-10)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Ulutan into the teachings of Aliseychik and Domansky to effectively classify attributes or gestures associated with an object.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 8-10, 16 and 18-20 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BOBBAK SAFAIPOUR whose telephone number is (571)270-1092. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Stephen Koziol can be reached at (408) 918-7630. 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.
/BOBBAK SAFAIPOUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2665
Prosecution Insights