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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to the Non-Final Office Action mailed on March 27, 2026 the applicant has submitted an amendment filed on June 29, 2026; amending claims 1, 14, and 15; canceling claim 8; adding new claims 16-20 (includes a newly added limitation); and arguing to traverse the 35 U.S.C. 101, 112 (a), and 102 rejections in view of the amendment.
Response to Arguments
Amended claims 1. 14, and 15 are no longer rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (a).
Amended claims 1. 14, and 15 now meet the requirement under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7 of the remarks, filed on June 29, 2026, with respect to the rejections of independent claims 1, 14, and 15 claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claims now incorporate the limitation of claim 8, and also added a new limitation to 1, 14, and 15. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Chen (US 2020/0094138) and Kawai, et al. (US 2025/0029423) which will be discussed in the rejection below.
Notice re prior art available under both pre-AIA and AIA
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kawai, et al. (US 2025/0029423 A1).
With regard to claim 1, Kawai, et al. disclose an information processing system comprising (See for example, Fig. 3): a hardware processor, i.e., image data acquisition unit and/or extraction unit, that acquires joint points of an object from an image of the object using a trained model, i.e., machine learning (See for example, paragraphs 0048-0049); calculates a feature amount, i.e., a relative geometric relation between the one key point or bone and another key point or bone, such as a position, a distance, an angle, and the like thereof, based on the joint points (See for example, paragraph 0051), determines a task, i.e., work, performed by the object, i.e., worker, in the image as a plurality of types of tasks, i.e., work actions, based on the joint points and the feature amount, and quantifies a behavior, i.e., action, of the object based on the joint points for each of the determined tasks (See for example, paragraphs (See for example, paragraphs 0057-0071; and Figs. 5-7 and the associated text). Thus, each of the requirements of claim 16 is met.
With regard to claim 17, the information processing system according to claim 16, wherein the feature amount includes a relative distance between the joint points (See for example, paragraph 0051).
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 1. 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 20200094138 A1).
With regard to claim 1, Chen discloses an information processing system comprising: a hardware processor that acquires joint points of an object from an image of the object using a image are processed using a trained learning model to identify the skeleton points in the color image or the depth image.” Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the two embodiments to arrive the invention of claim 1, and to do so would at least allow the acquisition of skeleton points of a user and/or human using a trained learning model. Thus, each of the requirements of claim 1 is met.
Claim 14 is rejected the same as claim 1. Thus, argument similar to that presented above for claim 1 is applicable to claim 14. Claim 14 distinguishes from claim 1 only in that it recites a non-transitory recording medium storing behavior quantification program. Fortunately, Chen (See for example, Figs. 4-5 and the associated text) teaches this feature.
Claim 15 is rejected the same as claim 1 except claim 15 is a method claim. Thus, argument similar to that presented above for claim 1 is applicable to claim 15.
Claims 2-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen ‘138 in view of . Ho, et al. (Computer English Translation of Japanese Patent No. JP-2017- 68431 A). 16. With regard to claim 2, Chen discloses all of the claimed subject matter as already addressed above in paragraph 13, and incorporated herein by reference. Chen does not expressly call for identifying the object based on the joint points. Ho at page 8, lines 17-24, states: " In order to detect the posture of the worker using such a simple model, the image analysis unit 1a in FIG. 1 detects the positions (x, y, and Z three-dimensional coordinate values of the detection points PO to P20 from the worker's image. ) In order to accurately detect the worker's body from the captured image data, it is preferable to register the colors of the work clothes (uniforms) and hats in advance so that they can be clearly distinguished from the colors of the factory equipment and products. It is Alternatively, it may be possible to determine each detection point P in the human body constituent part by pattern matching." Ho, et al. performs worker recognition. That is, the operator is recognized by image analysis of the captured image data that has been started. For example, a person wearing work clothes of a specific color is recognized as a worker, and the body position of the worker is grasped (See for example, page 10, lines 39-43). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching as taught by Ho, et al. into the system of Chen, and to do so would at least allow identification of the person/worker, wearing a clothes of specific color, may be carried out using the calculated joint points. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Chen with Ho, et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 2.
With regard to claim 3, the information processing system according to claim 2, wherein the hardware processor identifies the object based on the joint points and the image from which the joint points have been acquired (See for example, page 8, lines 17-24 of Ho, et al. ) .
With regard to claim 4, the information processing system according to claim 2, wherein the hardware processor further associates a quantified value of the behavior of the object with the identified object (See for example, page 8, lines 17-24 of Ho, et al. ).
With regard to claim 5, the information processing system according to claim 3, wherein the hardware processor further specifies a joint point to which a predetermined article, i.e., uniform and hats, is attached among the joint points and extracts, from the image, color information of the specified joint point as the color information of the object, wherein the hardware processor identifies the object based on the extracted color information (See for example, page 8, lines 17-24 of Ho, et al.).
With regard to claim 6, The information processing system according to claim 5, wherein the hardware processor specifies a joint point designated by a user as the joint point to which the predetermined article is attached (See for example, page 10, lines 36-43 of Ho, et al.).
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen ‘138 in view of Kawai, et al. (US 2025/0029423 A1).
With regard to claim 9, Chen discloses all of the claimed subject matter as already addressed above in paragraph 13, and incorporated herein by reference. Chen does not expressly call for calculates a feature amount based on the joint points, and determines a task performed by the object in the image as a plurality of types of tasks based on the joint points and the feature amount, wherein the hardware processor quantifies the behavior of the object for each of the determined tasks. However, Kawai, et al. (See for example, paragraphs 0051 and 0057-0071; and Figs. 5-7 and the associated text: i.e., a relative geometric relation between the one key point or bone and another key point or bone, such as a position, a distance, an angle, and the like thereof, i.e., feature amount) teach this feature. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching as taught by Kawai, et al. into the system of Chen so that work performed by a worker in a particular image may be determined as a plurality/different on the basis of skeleton points and a relative geometric relation between the one key point or bone and another key point or bone, such as a distance, among others. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Chen with Kawai, et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 9.
With regard to claim 10, the information processing system according to claim 9, wherein the feature amount includes a relative distance between the joint points (See for example, paragraph 0051 of Kawai, et al.).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Kawai, et al. as applied to claims 9-10 above, and further in view of Crisfalusi, et al. (US 2021/0161451 A1).
With regard to claim 11, Chen (as modified by Kawai, et al.) discloses all of the claimed subject matter as already addressed above in paragraph 16, and incorporated herein by reference. Chen (as modified by Kawai, et al.) does not expressly call for wherein the feature amount includes a movement speed of the joint points. However, Crisfalusi, et al. (See for example, col. 7, lines 49-67) teach this feature. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to incorporate the teaching as taught by Crisfalusi, et al. into the system of Chen (as modified by Kawai, et al.), if for no other reason than to calculate speed of movement of all the subject’s/worker joints such as head, neck, shoulders, hands, and feet over time. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Chen (as modified by Kawai, et al.) with Crisfalusi, et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 11.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawai, et al. ‘423 on view of Crisfalusi, et al. (US 2021/0161451 A1).
With regard to claim 18, Kawai, et al. (hereinafter “Kawai”) discloses all of the claimed subject matter as already addressed above in paragraph 10, and incorporated herein by reference. Kawai does not expressly call for wherein the feature amount includes a movement speed of the joint points. However, Crisfalusi, et al. (See for example, col. 7, lines 49-67) teach this feature. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to incorporate the teaching as taught by Crisfalusi, et al. into the system of Kawai, if for no other reason than to calculate speed of movement of all the subject’s/worker joints such as head, neck, shoulders, hands, and feet over time. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Kawai with Crisfalusi, et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 18.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 12-13, and 19-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL G MARIAM whose telephone number is (571)272-7394. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 EST.
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, Mathew Bella can be reached at (571)272-7778. 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.
/DANIEL G MARIAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2675
Prosecution Insights