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.
It is noted that claims 1-20 are considered eligible subject matter. Even if the claims were considered an abstract idea, the claims provide a practical application, i.e. estimating user movement in video. It is noted that claim 12 can only be considered a physical apparatus because of the 112 interpretation below which interprets the corresponding structures in the “means for” limitations.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
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 1-20 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.
Claims 1, 12 and 13 recite the limitation "the number of leg revolutions" in lines 4 3 and 4, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the input data” in line 5. It is unclear as to which input data the applicant is referring to, since the applicant previously claims “input data” twice.
Claims 4 and 14 recite the limitation "the user’s skeleton" in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the lower body" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the evaluation metric" in line 3. The applicant previously claims multiple “an evaluation metric”s, so it is unclear as to which evaluation metric the applicant is referring to.
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 1-3, 5-6, 8-13, 15, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015014918 (Lin et al).
Regarding claim 13, Lin et al discloses a method comprising a computer (fig. 1): acquiring a user video of a user exercising, dynamic images of a biker (fig. 1, item 10, page 1, paragraph 12); and making an estimation regarding the number of leg revolutions of the user based on the user video, i.e. pedaling frequency (page 1, paragraph 12).
Regarding claim 1, Lin et al discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program, (fig. 1, item 12, 1, page 2, paragraph 20) that causes a computer to function as means for acquiring a user video of a user exercising, a capture unit that captures dynamic images of a biker (fig. 1, item 10, page 1, paragraph 12), and means for making an estimation regarding the number of leg revolutions of the user based on the user video, i.e. the image recognition unit that finds pedaling frequency (page 1, paragraph 12, page 2, paragraph 20).
Claim 12 is is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. Thus, the arguments analogous to that presented above for claim 1 are equally applicable to claim 12. Claim 12 distinguishes from claim 1 only in that claim 12 is a device claim and claim 1 is a computer readable medium claim. Lin et al teaches further this feature, i.e. fig. 1, item 1.
Regarding claim 2, Lin et al discloses means for making an estimation regarding the number of leg revolutions makes the estimation regarding the number of leg revolutions of the user by applying an estimation model to input data based on the user video, i.e. the model applied to find the pedaling frequency to the input data of the user video (page 2, paragraph 20).
Regarding claim 3, Lin et al discloses the estimation model corresponds to a trained model created by supervised training using a labeled dataset containing input data including data regarding a subject video of a subject exercising and correct data associated with each item of the input data, or a derived model, i.e. the model derived by human images (page 2, paragraph 20) or a distillation model of the trained model.
Regarding claim 5, Lin et al discloses the input data to which the estimation model is applied is further based on data regarding depth from a reference point to parts of the user, i.e. the depth of the points of fig. 3a-3c.
Regarding claim 6, Lin et al discloses the means for making an estimation regarding the number of leg revolutions estimates at least one of: cumulative number of leg revolutions, rotational speed, i.e. pedal frequency (page 1, paragraph 12), rotational acceleration, or travel distance converted from the cumulative number of leg revolutions.
Regarding claim 8, Lin et al discloses the user video is a video of the user pedaling, i.e. a video of the user pedaling a bike (page 1, paragraph 12).
Regarding claim 9, Lin et al discloses further causing the computer to function as means for presenting information based on a result of the estimation regarding the number of leg revolutions of the user, i.e. a display (page 1, paragraph 12, fig. 1, item 16).
Regarding claim 10, Lin et al discloses the means for making an estimation regarding the number of leg revolutions estimates an evaluation metric regarding the number of leg revolutions, a pedaling frequency (page 1, paragraph 12), and the means for presenting presents the evaluation metric, (page 1, paragraph 12).
Regarding claim 11, Lin et al discloses the means for presenting presents change over time of the evaluation metric, because the pedaling frequency is displayed in real time (page 3, paragraph 23), and thus shows the change over time.
Claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 5. Thus, the arguments analogous to that presented above for claim 5 are equally applicable to claim 15. Claim 15 distinguishes from claim 5 only in that they have different dependencies, both of which have been previously rejected. Therefore, prior art applies.
Claim 18 and 19 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 6. Thus, the arguments analogous to that presented above for claim 6 are equally applicable to claims 18 and 19. Claims 18 and 19 distinguish from claim 6 only in that they have different dependencies, both of which have been previously rejected. Therefore, prior art applies.
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 4, 14, 16, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lin et al in view of U.S. Patent No. 10842415 (Jagannathan et al)
Regarding claim 4, Lin et al discloses all of the claimed elements as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference. Lin et al discloses the input data to which the estimation model is applied includes data regarding the user's body (fig. 3a-3c)
Lin et al does not disclose expressly the data regarding the user’s body is the user’s skeleton
Jagannathan et al discloses the data regarding the user’s body is the user’s skeleton (fig. 9, fig. 18B).
Lin et al and Jagannathan et al are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor, i.e. exercising metrics.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use skeleton data as user data.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide a more robust method of finding more accurate positioning of the body.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the computer readable medium of Lin et al with the skeleton data of Jagannathan et al to obtain the invention as specified in claim 4.
Claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 4. Thus, the arguments analogous to that presented above for claim 4 are equally applicable to claim 14. Claim 14 distinguishes from claim 4 only in that they have different dependencies, both of which have been previously rejected. Therefore, prior art applies.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 5. Thus, the arguments analogous to that presented above for claim 5 are equally applicable to claims 16 and 17. Claims 16 and 17 distinguish from claim 5 only in that they have different dependencies, both of which have been previously rejected. Therefore, prior art applies.
Claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 6. Thus, the arguments analogous to that presented above for claim 6 are equally applicable to claim 20. Claim 6 distinguishes from claim 20 only in that they have different dependencies, both of which have been previously rejected. Therefore, prior art applies.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lin et al in view of “Video-based Visualization of Knee Movement in Cycling for Quantitative and Qualitative Monitoring” (Kaplan et al).
Regarding claim 7, Lin et al discloses all of the claimed elements as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference.
Lin et al does not disclose expressly the user video is a video of the user captured so that at least the lower body of the user is included in an image capture range.
Kaplan et al discloses the user video is a video of the user captured so that at least the lower body of the user is included in an image capture range (fig. 1).
Lin et al & Kaplan et al are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor, i.e. pedaling data.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to capture the lower extremities.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide a more robust system by taking data directly from the source.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the computer readable medium of Lin et al with lower body capture of Kaplan et al to obtain the invention as specified in claim 7.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHLEEN YUAN DULANEY whose telephone number is (571)272-2902. The examiner can normally be reached M1:9am-5pm, th1:9am-1pm, fri1 9am-3pm, m2: 9am-5pm, t2:9-5 th2:9am-5pm, f2: 9am-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, Emily Terrell can be reached at 5712703717. 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.
/KATHLEEN Y DULANEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2666 1/1/2026