DETAILED ACTION
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.
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: “a receiving unit”, “a calculation unit”, and “a sending unit” in claims 1-10; and “a learning unit” as in claims 2 and 8.
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 § 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 1-10 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.
The claim limitation(s) is/are: “a receiving unit”, “a calculation unit”, and “a sending unit” in claims 1-10; and “a learning unit” as in claims 2 and 8 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. It is unclear what is a corresponding structure, and an association between the structure and the function can be found in the specification. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 1 and 9-10 recites the limitation "the measurement result". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear “the measurement result” refers to the calculation result or some other result.
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 23-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an attract idea without significantly more.
Per claims 1, and 9-10 recite an information processing device, an information processing method and a non-transitory computer readable medium, which fall within a statutory category under Step 1.
Claims recite the limitations of “based on a body model of a user, calculates size at the measurement position as calculation result” as in claims 1, 9 and 10.
The limitations as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of mental processes. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the functions through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper, nothing in these limitations that would prevent to be done mentally with the aid of pen and paper even with the recitation of generic computer components.
If the claim under broadest reasonable interpretation covers limitation that is drawn to concepts performed in the human mind but for recitation of a generic computer and/or generic computer components described at a high level of generality or linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, then it falls within the grouping of abstract ideas. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Step 2A Prong I.
The claims further recite additional elements including “an information processing device”, “a receiving unit that receives specification of a measurement position on a body”, “a calculation unit”, “a sending unit that sends the measurement result”, and “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored therein an information processing program that causes a computer to execute a process” as in claims 1, 9, and 10.
However, the additional elements including “an information processing device”, “a calculation unit” and “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored therein an information processing program that causes a computer to execute a process” are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer and/or adding the words “apply it”(or an equivalent) with the judicial exception and/or uses a generic computer or generic computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea. see MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional element of “a receiving unit that receives specification of a measurement position on a body” is at best the equivalent of merely collecting or gathering data as pre-solution activity which is insignificant amount to the judicial exception, See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Furthermore, the additional element “a sending unit that sends the measurement result” is at best is at best the equivalent of transmitting or sending which is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. post-solution activity) to the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or is at best applying/mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer which is insignificant and not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claims are therefore directed to the judicial exception under Step 2A Prong II.
These claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, there are insignificant additional elements including “an information processing device”, “a receiving unit that receives specification of a measurement position on a body”, “a calculation unit”, “a sending unit that sends the measurement result”, and “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored therein an information processing program that causes a computer to execute a process” as in claims 1, 9, and 10.
However, the additional elements including “an information processing device”, “a calculation unit” and “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored therein an information processing program that causes a computer to execute a process” are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, or merely a generic computer or generic computer components to perform the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional element of “a receiving unit that receives specification of a measurement position on a body” is at best the equivalent of merely collecting or gathering data as pre-solution activity which is insignificant amount to the judicial exception, See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Furthermore, the additional element of “a sending unit that sends the measurement result” is at best the equivalent of transmitting or sending via a processor which is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or is at best applying/mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer which is insignificant and not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Mere instructions to apply the exception cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not appear to be patent eligible under 35 USC 101 under Step 2B.
Per claims 2-8, these claims are also similar rejected for being directed to an attract ideas of “Mental Processes” without significantly more as detailed in the rejection of independent claims 1, 9 and 10 above. In particular, there are additional elements in these claims however these additional elements are at best the equivalent of gather, and transmitting or sending of data which is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or is at best applying/mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer which is insignificant and not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 7, and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KAMIOKA et al. (“Kamioka” JP Pub. No. JP 2018-018381) .
Per claim 1, Kamioka teaches an information processing device comprising:
a receiving unit that receives specification of a measurement position on a body ([0004]…measure the linear distance dimension based on the measurement reference line displayed together with the two-dimensional image of the body. [0026]-[0027], which show allowing the user to adjust the length and position of the display component superimposed on the image of the body);
a calculating unit that, based on a body model of body of a user, calculates size at the measurement position as calculation result ([0030]-[0031]…the calculator 1b calculates circumference from the length of the display components relating to the same part in each of multiple capture images of a person…the length of the circumference such as the bust is calculated from the circumference of the ellipse… the calculation unit 1b may estimate the sizes…according to the adjustment amount of the positions); and
a sending unit that sends the measurement result ([0032]…display a screen 7 including the size estimation result).
Per claim 3, Kamioka teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the sending unit sends, as the measurement result, size information of only such measurement position which is allowed by the user ([0026]-[0027], which show allowing the user to adjust the length and position of the display component superimposed on the image of the body (i.e. adjustments that is only acceptable by the user). [0035]…processing apparatus 1 narrows the display components only in the positions appropriate to the clothing and accepts user adjustments, thereby eliminating the measurement of the part not used for the size selection).
Per claim 4, Kamioka teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the receiving unit receives specification of the measurement position that is identified based on reference position on outside of body as defined by the body model ([0016]…the position to display part corresponds to a specific part to be measure (for example shoulder width, bust, waist hip, crotch, etc. if the object is the person) ).
Per claim 7, Kamioka teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the receiving unit further receives correction made by the user in specification of the measurement position ([0026]-[0027], which show allowing the user to adjust the length and position of the display component superimposed on the image of the body (i.e. adjustments that is only acceptable by the user). [0035]…processing apparatus 1 narrows the display components only in the positions appropriate to the clothing and accepts user adjustments).
Claims 9 and 10 individually is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 2, 5 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KAMIOKA et al. (“Kamioka” JP Pub. No. JP 2018-018381) and TANO et al. (“Tano”, JP Pub. No. JP 2021-022250).
Per claim 2, Kamioka teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, but does not teach a learning unit that, based on specification of the measurement position, learns about the measurement position.
However, Tano teaches a learning unit that, based on specification of the measurement position, learns about the measurement position ([0046]-[0050], which show size measurement of a body. [0025]…when the capture image for measurement includes a top, the processor 22 may learn distance measurement positions so that at least one of the dimensions of the length, sleeve length, shoulder width (i.e. chest circumference), waist (i.e. (waist circumference), and shoulder width is measured). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teaching of Tano in the invention of Kamioka in order to incorporate a learning method to reduce the need for human intervention and automate measurements.
Per claim 5, Kamioka the information processing device according to claim 1, the receiving unit receives specification of the measurement position that is identified based on reference position on the body as estimated based on the body model ([0016]…the position to display part corresponds to a specific part to be measure (for example shoulder width, bust, waist hip, crotch, etc. if the object is the person. [0026]-[0027], which show the user is can adjust the length and position of the display component superimposed on the image of the body. In order words, the user can adjust the length of the display component smaller than a particular part/position the body). Tano further teach wherein the distance measurement position may be the distance connecting two points on the surface of a three-dimensional object ([0049]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teaching of Tano in the invention of Kamioka in order to allow the user to define the length on position within the points on the surface of a body model, thus, this would provide the user with the flexibility to find the measurement based on the defined length merely as a choice of implementation.
Per claim 8, the modified Kamioka teaches the information processing device according to claim 2, wherein the calculating unit corrects the measurement position and calculates the measurement result, and the learning unit learns about the corrected measurement position (Kamioka, [0155]…which show automatically adjusting the length and position of display components; Tano, [0025] and [0046]-[0050] which show using of a learning unit to correct measurement positions).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KAMIOKA et al. (“Kamioka” JP Pub. No. JP 2018-018381) and MAEZAWA (CA Pub. No. CA 3 095 732).
Per claim 6, Kamioka teaches the information processing device according to claim 1 comprising the measurement position is identified based on a two-dimensional body mode ([0004]; [0035]), but does not teach wherein the receiving unit receives specification of the measurement position that is identified based on an operation performed with respect to a body size measurement costume used in creating the body model.
However, Maezawa a size measurement device is worn on a user body and is used to measure the user’s size ([0022]; [0030]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teaching of Maezawa in the invention of Kamioka in order to utilize a body size measurement costume/clothing to enable an alternative method in determining a body size.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Barker (Pub. No. US 2019/0051008) discloses method for measuring the circumference/width/length of human body or object using picture/photograph.
Moore et al (Pub. No. US 2019/0122424) discloses generation of body models and measurements.
Mok et al. (Pub. No. US 2020/0126295) discloses method and system for reconstructing from images a personalized 3d human body model.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THANH T VU whose telephone number is (571)272-4073. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7AM - 3:30PM.
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, Fred Ehichioya can be reached at (571) 272-4034. 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.
/THANH T VU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2179