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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) filed on 4/23/2024 and 10/10/2025 were considered and placed on the file of record by the examiner.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
In its recent decision, Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. {“Alice Corp.’’), the Supreme Court made clear that it applies the framework set forth in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S._(2012) {Mayo), to analyze claims directed towards laws of nature and abstract idea. Alice Corp. also establishes that the same analysis applies for all categories of claims (e.g., product and process claims). The basic inquiries to determine subject matter eligibility remain the same as explained in MPEP 2106(1). First, determine whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Next, determine if the claim is directed towards a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea). The two-part test provided in Alice Corp. to determine whether a claim directed towards an abstract idea is statutory under § 101 requires an evaluation to determined 1) whether the claims is directed to an abstract idea and 2) if an abstract idea is present in the claim, whether the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas reference in Alice Corp. include:
- Fundamental economic principles
- Certain methods of organizing human activities
- An idea of itself
- Mathematical relationships/formulas
In accordance with judicial precedent, the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance sets forth a procedure to determine whether a claim is ‘‘directed to’’ a judicial exception. Under the procedure, if a claim recites a judicial exception (a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea), it must then be analyzed to determine whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception. A claim is not ‘‘directed to’’ a judicial exception, and thus is patent eligible, if the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.
Step 1 - Statutory Category
The claims 1-16 recite a process of recognizing a motion of the body of the person in a plurality of consecutive image frames to determine the person’s motion, therefore it recites at least one of the enumerated categories, a process, eligible subject matter in 35 USC 101. Accordingly, claims 1-16 satisfy Step 1.
Step 2A(i) -Focus of the Claim
As a result, the claims 1-16 will be reviewed under Step 2A(i) to determine whether the claim is directed to one of the judicially recognized exceptions (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). Alice, 573 U.S. at 217. As part of this inquiry, we must "look at the 'focus of the claimed advance over the prior art' to determine if the claim's 'character as a whole' is directed to excluded subject matter." Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citations omitted). The claims recite locating a person in images, determine the motion pattern of the person, and determine whether the motion is in a predetermined order, thus organization of human activity such as surveillance of human behavior.
The court have ruled that receiving and authenticating identity data to permit access was abstract since the functions were claimed generically rather than offering a "'concrete, specific solution" See Prisnz Technologies LLC v. T-Afobile USA, 696 F. App'x 1014 (Fed. Cir.2017). Abstract ideas include the concepts of collecting data, recognizing certain data within the collected data set, storing the data in memory, and notifying the user of the results. Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Ass 'n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014); see also Smart Sys. Innovations, LLC v. Chicago Transit Auth., 873 F.3d 1364, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (concluding "claims directed to the collection, storage, and recognition of data are directed to an abstract idea"). Moreover, the reviewing court has concluded that acts of parsing, comparing, storing, and editing data are abstract ideas. Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 890 F.3d 1369, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2018). In addition, the collection of information and analysis of information ( e.g., recognizing certain data within the dataset, such as rules) are also abstract ideas. Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom SA., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Similarly, "collecting, displaying, and manipulating data" is an abstract idea. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2017); see also SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ("[M]erely presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing information ... is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis").
The process of receiving images of a person, viewing motion of the person, and determining whether a sequence of the motion is a predetermined pattern is a method of organizing human activity, as considered under MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II), Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Therefore, claims 1-16 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A(ii) -Practical Application
Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a);
Applying or using a judicial exception to affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(b);
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(c); and
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(e) and the Vanda Memo issued in June 2018.
Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f);
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g); and
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(h).
In this instance, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims merely detect persons in images, determine motion of the persons, and determine motion patterns. The claims do not provide an improvement to the functionality of a computer or image analysis technical field; the claims are not implemented with or used with a particular machine; the claims do not transform an article to a different state or thing when locating a persona and motion in images; and the claims do not provide a meaningful way of analyzing image regions in the image analysis technical environment.
Step 2B - Inventive Concept
As set forth under MPEP § 2106.05( d), only if a claim: (1) recites a judicial exception; and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look under Step 2B to determine; (3) whether the claim adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not "well-understood, routine, conventional activity" (WURC) in the field; or (4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Having determined claims 1-16 is directed to an abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application, we now evaluate whether the additional elements, whether examined alone or as an ordered combination, add a specific limitation that is not well-understood, routine, or conventional activity in the field, or simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea. See generally Revised Guidance.
It is possible that a claim that does not ‘‘integrate’’ a recited judicial exception is nonetheless patent eligible. For example, the claim may recite additional elements that render the claim patent eligible even though a judicial exception is recited in a separate claim element. Along these lines, the Federal Circuit has held claims eligible at the second step of the Alice/Mayo test because the additional elements recited in the claims provided ‘‘significantly more’’ than the recited judicial exception (e.g., because the additional elements were unconventional in combination).
Limitations reference in Alice Corp. that may be enough to quality as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with an abstract idea include, as nonexclusive examples:
- Improvements to another technology or technical field
- Improvements to the functioning of the computer itself
- Meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment
Examples that are not enough to quality as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with an abstract idea include, as non-limiting or non-exclusive example:
- Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with an abstract idea, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer
- Requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry
The additional elements recited in claims 1-16 are well-understood, routine, and conventional steps in image analysis and image surveillance. The claims 1-16 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims are directed to viewing an image and determining motion in the images.
Additionally, as noted in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), the courts have previously recognized that using computer processors and memories to collect data and keep records, perform repetitive calculations, and/or receive/send data are well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i)-(iv)). See also Berkheimer, 881 F.3d at 1366 (acts of parsing, comparing, storing, and editing data are abstract ideas); SAP Am., Inc. v. Investpic, LLC, 890 F.3d 1016, 1021 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ("[M]erely presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing information ... is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis"); Intellectual Ventures I, 850 F .3d at 1340 ("[C]ollecting, displaying, and manipulating data" is an abstract idea); Smart Sys. Innovations, 873 F .3d at 1372 (concluding "claims directed to the collection, storage, and recognition of data are directed to an abstract idea.").
The claims 1-14, and 16 state viewing images using a processor and computer. However, the claims merely implement the judicial exception using generic computer elements to perform well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality. See FairWarning, 839 F.3d at 1096 ("[T]he use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter."); see also OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363 (claims reciting, inter alia, sending messages over a network, gathering statistics, using a computerized system to automatically determine an estimated outcome, and presenting offers to potential customers found to merely recite "'well-understood, routine conventional activit[ies],' either by requiring conventional computer activities or routine data-gathering steps").
In claims 1-16, the steps of receiving images, analyzing images, and determining motion patterns such as hand movements in images is not an improvement to a fundamental practice and/or method of organizing human activity. In claims 1-14, and 16, the steps are tied to a computing processor; however, combining the steps with a generic processor is not significant. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than generalized steps well-known and routine in the art such as image detection and object localization. Therefore, claims 1-16 are directed to patent-ineligible abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application, with steps that do not add significantly more to the abstract idea. Claims 1-16 are ineligible. In order to overcome the 101 rejection, the Examiner suggests incorporating the skeleton estimation technique using machine learning described in paragraph 0046 of the specification.
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, 7, 15, 16 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.
Dependent claims 2-6 and 8-14 are rejected based on their dependency.
Claims 1, 15, 16 recites the limitation “the specified characteristic motion.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “each of the regions.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
The factual inquiries 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, 5, 6, 8, 9, 15, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalaboukis (US 11,803,831) in view of Storm et al. (US 2020/0218793).
Regarding claim 1, Kalaboukis teaches a motion determination apparatus comprising:
at least one memory storing instructions, and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to (see figure 5B, col. 3 lines 15-27, col. 4 lines 28-42, Kalaboukis discusses computing devices with memory for performing instructions);
specify a position of a person from acquired image data (see col. 2 lines 6-17, col. 4 lines 28-42, Kalaboukis discusses capturing images of a user and tracking the user’s body);
specify a first characteristic motion by analyzing a motion of the person in the image data in accordance with a first characteristic motion pattern associated with a first position of the specified person (see col. 8 line 65- col. 9 line 2, Kalaboukis discusses verify a series of user gestures with a stored sequence or pattern of gestures; see col. 13 lines 30-63, col. 14 lines 63-64, Kalaboukis discusses capturing images of a user’s hand gestures defined by predetermined movements); and
specifying a second characteristic motion by analyzing a motion of the person in the image data in accordance with a second characteristic motion pattern associated with a second position of the specified person (see col. 8 line 65- col. 9 line 2, Kalaboukis discusses verify a series of user gestures with a stored sequence or pattern of gestures; see col. 13 lines 30-63, col. 14 lines63-64, Kalaboukis discusses capturing images of a user’s hand gestures defined by predetermined movements).
Kalaboukis teaches verifying a series of user gestures with a stored sequence or pattern of gestures designated for a particular user (see col. 8 lines 65-67).
Storm teaches determine whether the specified characteristic motion is in a predetermined order (see para. 0072-0075, 0092, 0096, Storm discusses an enrollment database for enrolling a user’s gesture sequence as a unique user profile, and comparing a user’s gesture sequence with the enrolled gesture sequence to determine a match).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Kalaboukis with Storm to derive at the invention of claim 1. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform motion pattern detection.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Kalaboukis in this manner in order to improve motion detection by comparing a sequence of motion to a predetermined sequence stored in memory to properly distinguish movements in images. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Kalaboukis, while the teaching of Storm continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of comparing captured motion to a stored predetermined order of motion to properly identify motion gestures that contain motion elements in an order or sequence. The Kalaboukis and Storm systems perform motion detection, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Regarding claim 2, Storm teaches further comprising a storage for storing the predetermined order, a plurality of positions of the person, and a characteristic motion pattern performed by a person associated with the positions (see para. 0072-0075, 0092, 0096, Storm discusses an enrollment database for enrolling a user’s gesture sequence as a unique user profile, and comparing a user’s gesture sequence with the enrolled gesture sequence to determine a match).
The same motivation of claim 1 is applied to claim 2. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Kalaboukis with Storm to derive at the invention of claim 2. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform motion pattern detection.
Regarding claim 3, Storm teaches wherein the plurality of positions is associated with a plurality of regions in an image (see para. 0043, Storm discusses a camera capturing images of gesture patterns).
The same motivation of claim 1 is applied to claim 3. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Kalaboukis with Storm to derive at the invention of claim 3. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform motion pattern detection.
Regarding claim 5, Kalaboukis teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to recognize a motion of the body of the person in time series based on a plurality of consecutive image frames (see col. 14 lines 27-31, Kalaboukis discusses capturing a series of images to recognize a person’s motion and provide gesture information).
The same motivation of claim 1 is applied to claim 5. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Kalaboukis with Storm to derive at the invention of claim 5. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform motion pattern detection.
Regarding claim 6, Kalaboukis teaches w wherein the storage stores the characteristic motion pattern based on a plurality of consecutive image frames (see col. 14 lines 27-31, Kalaboukis discusses capturing a series of images to recognize a person’s motion and provide gesture information).
The same motivation of claim 1 is applied to claim 6. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Kalaboukis with Storm to derive at the invention of claim 6. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform motion pattern detection.
Regarding claim 8, Storm teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to recognize a target, specify a plurality of the characteristic motions for the same target recognized (see para. 0072-0075, 0092, 0096, Storm discusses an enrollment database for enrolling a user’s gesture sequence as a unique user profile, and comparing a user’s gesture sequence with the enrolled gesture sequence to determine a match).
The same motivation of claim 1 is applied to claim 8. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Kalaboukis with Storm to derive at the invention of claim 8. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform motion pattern detection.
Regarding claim 9, Storm teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to output a determination result related to the determination, sequentially determine a unit characteristic motion of each step in the predetermined order, and the output means sequentially outputs a determination result regarding each step (see para. 0072-0075, 0092, 0096, Storm discusses an enrollment database for enrolling a user’s gesture sequence as a unique user profile, and comparing a user’s gesture sequence with the enrolled gesture sequence to determine a match).
The same motivation of claim 1 is applied to claim 9. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Kalaboukis with Storm to derive at the invention of claim 9. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform motion pattern detection.
Claim 15 is rejected as applied to claim 1 as pertaining to a corresponding method.
Claim 16 is rejected as applied to claim 1 as pertaining to a corresponding non-transitory computer readable medium.
Claims 4, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalaboukis (US 11,803,831) in view of Storm et al. (US 2020/0218793) in view of Parkhomenko (US 2015/0253864).
Regarding claim 4, Kalaboukis and Storm do not expressly disclose wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to set a feature point and a pseudo skeleton of a body of the person based on the image data.
However, Parkhomenko teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to set a feature point and a pseudo skeleton of a body of the person based on the image data (see figure 2, para. 0114, 0122, Parkhomenko discusses extracting skeleton data of user’s palm).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Kalaboukis and Storm with Parkhomenko to derive at the invention of claim 4. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform motion pattern detection.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Kalaboukis and Storm in this manner in order to improve motion detection by extracting points in human body using the well-known skeletonization process, thereby focusing on important elements and conserving processing power, and comparing a sequence of motion to a predetermined sequence stored in memory to properly distinguish movements in images. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Kalaboukis and Storm, while the teaching of Parkhomenko continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of extracting important points in a skeleton and comparing captured motion to a stored predetermined order of motion to properly identify motion gestures that contain motion elements in an order or sequence. The Kalaboukis, Storm, and Parkhomenko systems perform motion detection, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Regarding claim 7, Kalaboukis and Storm do not expressly disclose wherein the storage stores each of the regions defined as ranges adjacent to or separated from each other in the image, and stores each posture in which a hand of the person is present at a position approximate to the region as the characteristic motion pattern.
However, Parkhomenko teaches wherein the storage stores each of the regions defined as ranges adjacent to or separated from each other in the image, and stores each posture in which a hand of the person is present at a position approximate to the region as the characteristic motion pattern (see para. 0137, Parkhomenko discusses hand pose recognition utilized by the finger detection and tracking module to improve the quality of finger detection and finger trajectory determination and tracking over multiple input frames).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Kalaboukis and Storm with Parkhomenko to derive at the invention of claim 7. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform motion pattern detection.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Kalaboukis and Storm in this manner in order to improve motion detection by extracting points in human body using the well-known skeletonization process, thereby focusing on important elements and conserving processing power, and comparing a sequence of motion to a predetermined sequence stored in memory to properly distinguish movements in images. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Kalaboukis and Storm, while the teaching of Parkhomenko continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of extracting important points in a skeleton and comparing captured motion to a stored predetermined order of motion to properly identify motion gestures that contain motion elements in an order or sequence. The Kalaboukis, Storm, and Parkhomenko systems perform motion detection, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalaboukis (US 11,803,831) in view of Storm et al. (US 2020/0218793) in view of Shi et al. (US 2019/0034074).
Regarding claim 10, Kalaboukis and Storm do not expressly disclose wherein the storage stores a time limit of each step in the predetermined order, and the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to determine whether the time limit is exceeded in each step, and output a determination result at a time point when the time limit is exceeded.
However, Shi teaches wherein the storage stores a time limit of each step in the predetermined order, and the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to determine whether the time limit is exceeded in each step, and output a determination result at a time point when the time limit is exceeded (see para. 0056, Shi discusses when exceeding a time threshold, it determines whether the gesture trajectory matches a preset value).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Kalaboukis and Storm with Shi to derive at the invention of claim 10. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform motion pattern detection.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Kalaboukis and Storm in this manner in order to improve motion detection by implementing a time limit and comparing a sequence of motion to a predetermined sequence stored in memory to properly distinguish movements in images. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Kalaboukis and Storm, while the teaching of Shi continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of comparing captured motion to a stored predetermined order of motion under a time limit to capture an entire motion sequence to properly identify motion gestures. The Kalaboukis, Storm, and Shi systems perform motion detection, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalaboukis (US 11,803,831) in view of Storm et al. (US 2020/0218793) in view of Itoh (US 2014/0055349).
Regarding claim 11, Kalaboukis and Storm do not expressly disclose wherein the storage further stores an attention motion pattern, the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to specify an attention motion of the person according to the attention motion pattern, determine that an attention state is established when the attention motion is specified regardless of the order, and output attention information indicating the attention state.
However, Itoh teaches wherein the storage further stores an attention motion pattern, the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to specify an attention motion of the person according to the attention motion pattern, determine that an attention state is established when the attention motion is specified regardless of the order, and output attention information indicating the attention state (see para. 0107, Itoh discusses preparatory actions that include standing in front of a camera or looking into an eye gaze input device for gesture recognition).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Kalaboukis and Storm with Itoh to derive at the invention of claim 11. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform motion pattern detection.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Kalaboukis and Storm in this manner in order to improve motion detection by comparing a sequence of motion to a predetermined sequence stored in memory to properly distinguish movements in images. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Kalaboukis and Storm, while the teaching of Itoh continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of comparing captured motion to a stored predetermined order of motion under a time limit to capture an entire motion sequence to properly identify motion gestures. The Kalaboukis, Storm, and Itoh systems perform motion detection, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalaboukis (US 11,803,831) in view of Storm et al. (US 2020/0218793) in view of Pastor (US 10,963,879).
Regarding claim 12, Kalaboukis and Storm do not expressly disclose wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to recognize a vehicle present in a predetermined stop region in the image data, recognize that the vehicle is stopped at a predetermined position, and specify that the person has performed the characteristic motion.
However, Pastor teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to recognize a vehicle present in a predetermined stop region in the image data, recognize that the vehicle is stopped at a predetermined position, and specify that the person has performed the characteristic motion (see figure 2, col. 5 lines 1-18, Pastor discusses recognizing a vehicle at a gasoline pump station and identifying a gesture that a person puts inside the filling nozzle into the vehicle).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Kalaboukis and Storm with Pastor to derive at the invention of claim 12. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform motion pattern detection.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Kalaboukis and Storm in this manner in order to improve motion detection by capturing images of a vehicle and person to compare a sequence of motion to a predetermined sequence stored in memory to properly distinguish movements in images. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Kalaboukis and Storm, while the teaching of Pastor continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of capturing images of a vehicle and person and comparing captured motion to a stored predetermined order of motion to properly identify motion gestures. The Kalaboukis, Storm, and Pastor systems perform motion detection, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Regarding claim 13, Kalaboukis and Storm do not expressly disclose wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to recognize a vehicle present in a predetermined stop region in the image data, wherein, when it is recognized that the vehicle is stopped at a stop position, the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to start the determination.
However, Pastor teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to recognize a vehicle present in a predetermined stop region in the image data, wherein, when it is recognized that the vehicle is stopped at a stop position, the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to start the determination (see figure 2, col. 5 lines 1-18, Pastor discusses recognizing a vehicle at a gasoline pump station and identifying a gesture that a person puts inside the filling nozzle into the vehicle).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Kalaboukis and Storm with Pastor to derive at the invention of claim 13. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform motion pattern detection.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Kalaboukis and Storm in this manner in order to improve motion detection by capturing images of a vehicle and person to compare a sequence of motion to a predetermined sequence stored in memory to properly distinguish movements in images. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Kalaboukis and Storm, while the teaching of Pastor continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of capturing images of a vehicle and person and comparing captured motion to a stored predetermined order of motion to properly identify motion gestures. The Kalaboukis, Storm, and Pastor systems perform motion detection, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Regarding claim 14, Kalaboukis and Storm do not expressly disclose wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to recognize a fuel filler nozzle, determine whether the fuel filler nozzle is inserted into a fuel filler hole of a vehicle.
However, Pastor teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to recognize a fuel filler nozzle, determine whether the fuel filler nozzle is inserted into a fuel filler hole of a vehicle (see figure 2, col. 5 lines 1-18, Pastor discusses recognizing a vehicle at a gasoline pump station and identifying a gesture that a person puts inside the filling nozzle into the vehicle).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Kalaboukis and Storm with Pastor to derive at the invention of claim 14. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform motion pattern detection.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Kalaboukis and Storm in this manner in order to improve motion detection by capturing images of a vehicle and person to compare a sequence of motion to a predetermined sequence stored in memory to properly distinguish movements in images. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Kalaboukis and Storm, while the teaching of Pastor continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of capturing images of a vehicle and person and comparing captured motion to a stored predetermined order of motion to properly identify motion gestures. The Kalaboukis, Storm, and Pastor systems perform motion detection, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Antoniac et al. (US 2016/0224123) discusses analyzing sequence of images and identifying a hand gesture of the user in the sequence of images, comparing the identified hand gesture with a set of pre-defined hand gestures.
Seger et al. (US 11,556,298) discusses capturing a series of images of a user’s hand and arms motion.
Sodano et al. (US 2020/0265222) discusses detecting hand gestures used by the user to authenticate his/her identity.
Li et al. (US 2016/0171293) discusses classifying a gesture, such as a hand gesture, based upon a time-ordered series of movement directions each indicating the direction of movement of a body part in a given frame of a stream of captured images
Chatterton (US 2015/0067823) discusses capturing a series of images, such as a video, of user to verify an identity of the user and used to authenticate the user.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNY A CESE whose telephone number is (571) 270-1896. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, 9am – 4pm.
If attempts to reach the primary examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gregory Morse can be reached on (571) 272-3838. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Kenny A Cese/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2663