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 Interpretation
Claims 1 and 5 recites a limitation of the form “at least one of A, B, C and D”. In accordance with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in SuperGuide Corp v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., these limitations are conjunctive in nature and to be construed as “at least one of A, at least one of B, at least one of C and at least one of D”. Therefore, these claims are addressed herein as requiring each of these steps rather than the alternative of A or B or C or D.
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: “controller configured to: receive” in claims 5 and 16.
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 § 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 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
This analysis is based on the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence (2024 AI SME Update) published on July 17, 2024 (89 FR 58128).
With regard to claims 1-22:
Step 1:
Claims 1-22 are directed to a method and system which fall under the statutory categories of invention of methods and machines. Therefore, step 1 is met.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
Claims 1 and 5 recite steps of “receiving”, “detecting”, “selecting” and “rotating” The limitations, excluding the controller, therefore falls within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the specification, the use of one or more neural networks encompasses mental processes practically performed in the human mind. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. For example, a person could observe a first image, generate rotated images, observe the poses in each image and determine which one is best suited for pose detection.
Claim 9 recites the additional steps of “tagging” and “accepting” which are further considered to be mental processes, as the tagging step is accomplishable by labeled in one’s mind and the accepting is an alternative to the selecting step in the above claims.
Claim 16 recites the additional steps of “associating” and “accepting” which are further considered to be mental processes, as the associating step is accomplishable by acknowledging the rotation angle in one’s mind and the accepting is an alternative to the selecting step in the above claims.
Dependent claims 2-4, 6-8, 10-15 and 17-22 further clarify previously established limitations that may be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. For example, in determination of usability, a person is able to observe whether the imaged person is sufficiently visible in the image.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The limitations of claims 5 and 16 are recited as being performed by a “controller”. The controller is recited at a high level of generality. The controller is used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f), which provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception.
In evaluation of whether the invention integrates into a practical application, it should be clear that the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field. To evaluate an improvement to a computer or technical field, the specification must set forth an improvement in technology and the claim itself must reflect the disclosed improvement. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a).
According to the specification, the improvement is to identify a person’s pose when they are most similar to a standing position such that the pose detection algorithm can reliably extract the correct pose in the image. However, this is not clearly reflected in the language of the claims, as selecting or accepting the image according to a pose’s usability criteria does not clearly reflect that the pose is vertical.
Step 2B:
In claims 1, 5, 9 and 16, the limitation of receiving a first image amounts to merely receiving data and the limitation of transmitting the detected pose amounts to merely outputting data. These limitations are considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity. In consideration, these limitations are further evaluated to take into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Receiving and presenting data is very well understood and routine in the field and therefore these do not add an inventive concept to the claims.
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 1-8, 10 and 17 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.
Claim 1 recites “detecting a pose in the selected image”, after which the selecting step occurs. It is unclear how a pose can be detected in an image that is selected after the pose is detected.
Dependent claims 2-4 do not clarify the issue from claim 1 and therefore inherit the deficiencies of claim 1.
Claim 5 recites “selecting at least one of the first, second, third and fourth images”. Based upon the conjunctive interpretation of this limitation, it is unclear how the subsequent limitation of “detect a pose in the selected image” is to be defined if there are multiple images selected.
Dependent claims 6-8 do not clarify the issue from claim 5 and therefore inherit the deficiencies of claim 5.
Claim 2 recites “the composite image” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Similar reasoning applies to claim 6 and claim 10.
Claim 4 recites “detecting visibility” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Similar reasoning applies to claim 8.
Claim 10 recites “selecting an image” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Similar reasoning applies to claim 17.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Bian et al. (“Fall Detection Based on Body Part Tracking Using a Depth Camera”) discloses a method of pose detection where a first image in an original orientation is rotated multiple times to determine which rotated version is the most appropriate to perform the pose detection on.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATRINA R FUJITA whose telephone number is (571)270-1574. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30-5:30 pm ET.
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, Sumati Lefkowitz can be reached at 5712723638. 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.
/KATRINA R FUJITA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2672