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 .
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.
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: generation unit in claims 1-16.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The Specification discloses in [0013], “The data processing system 1 has a material and behavioral generation unit 11, a database 12 and a dataset automatic generation unit 13. Any two or all of the material and behavior generation unit 11, the dataset automatic generation unit 13, and the database 12 thus provided may be included in one device, or each of these components may be provided in a separate device.” Thus, the generation unit appears to be a device.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because they can read on computer software. Computer programs claimed as computer listings per se: the descriptions or expressions of the programs are not physical things. They are neither computer components nor statutory processes as they are not acts being performed. Such claimed computer programs do not define any structural or functional interrelationships between the computer program and other claimed elements of a computer, which permit the computer program’s functionality to be realized. A computer program is merely a set of instructions capable of being executed by a computer. The computer program itself is not a process. The “program” recited in claim 16 is nothing more than computer software. Since the claimed system can be interpreted as only including computer software, and does not recite or include machines, manufactures, or compositions of matter, then claim 16 does not appear to be statutory under 35 USC 101. The specification discloses in [0164], “”In a case where the series of processes are conducted by software, a program constituting this software is installed in a general-purpose computer or the like.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 15, 16; 6 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chachek et al. U.S. Pub. No. 2025/0029170.
Re: claims 1, 15 and 16 (which are rejected under the same rationale), Chachek teaches
1. A data processing device comprising: a generation unit that generates a movement route for a person model included in a 3D model that is dynamic and provided for forming a CG image, the person model moving on a virtual facility model imitating a facility in a real space, (“... a visual navigation system is provided, optionally implemented as an Augmented Reality (AR) based navigation system which may assist human users in real-life navigation scenarios, and/or optionally implemented as a Virtual Reality (VR) based navigation system which may assist human users in navigation through or within a VR environment (e.g., in an online game; in an emulated or simulated representation of an environment; or the like).”; Chachek, [0052])
A virtual reality VR based navigation system is implemented that assists users in navigating within a VR environment, such as a simulated representation of an environment.
(“A user may be inside the store (or other mapped environment) and may utilize a smartphone (or other portable electronic device) to request assistance with in-store navigation or wayfinding or route guidance... Based on the user’s input, the user’s electronic device, locally and/or with assistance of a remote server, may operate as follows: (a) parse the user query to extract from it the desired destination; (b) extract or deduce the precise current in-store-location of the user; (c) determine a walking route from the current location to the destination based on the Store Map and by utilizing a suitable route guidance algorithm; (d) generation turn-by turn walking instructions for such route, and convey them to the user by voice and/or text and/or animation and/or other means, as a bulk set of instructions, or as a gradually exposed set of instructions that keeps being updated as the user walks... For example, such AR-based or VR-based navigation arrows or indicators, are shown as an overlay on products, to guide the user how or where to move within the aisle or the category of products in the store.”; Chachek, [0063], [0064], [0065])
For example, user is in a store and uses a smartphone to request navigation or route guidance. Based on the user’s input, the tune-by-turn walking instructions are generated (a generation unit that generates a movement route), by providing arrows or indicators to guide the user where to move within the store.
(“Reference is made to FIG. 17, which is a schematic illustration of a third-person VR view seen by a user in a store... in FIG. 17, the virtual depiction of the real world is depicted to the user, on his device, as a third-person experience, showing an avatar corresponding to the user himself, as if the user is located a few feet behind and above the actual location of his end-user device. This view may be preferred by some users, for purposes of in-store navigation and/or for locating particular in-store items or products.”; Chachek, [0110], Fig. 17)
Fig. 17 illustrates a third-person VR view seen by a user in a store. A virtual depiction of the real-world (virtual facility model imitating a facility in a real space) is presented along with an avatar corresponding to the user (a person model included in a 3D model that is dynamic and provided for forming a CG image). The avatar (person model) is walking, following the generated route virtual indicators (the person model moving on a virtual facility model imitating a facility in a real space). The avatar is considered to be the 3D model that is provided for forming a CG image. This embodiment of Chachek is silent regarding the movement route being generated using a statistic associated with a real user moving in the facility, however, another embodiment teaches this limitation.
and the movement route being generated using a statistic associated with a real user moving in the facility. (“For example, the company Food-Maker manufactures Corn Flakes; and pays to the store in order to promote this product. The user utilizes his smartphone within the store, to navigate from his current location (the Bread shelf) to a destination (the Milk shelf).... the system may intentionally select a travel route, that necessarily passes next to the Corn Flakes shelf; and upon reaching the real-life vicinity of that shelf, the smartphone of the user may convey to the user a pop-up alert (graphics, text, animation, video)... which draws the attention of the user to the Corn Flakes item and/or to the fact that this product is on sale or is at a discount today.”; Chachek, [0095])
Food makers pays the store to promote corn flakes. When the user uses his smartphone to navigate in the store from his current location to the milk shelf, the system selects a travel route that passes next to the corn flakes shelf. Then the smartphone conveys a pop-up alert to draw attention to the corn flakes and that the corn flakes are on sale.
(“For example, Food-Maker-1 may bid to pay to the store 75 cents for each placement of that navigation information which promotes his Corn Flakes product to any user; whereas Food-Maker-2 may bid to pay to the store 80 cents for each placement of navigation information which promotes his Soda product to users that are females in the age range of 30 to 40 years old (e.g., known to the system based on the user being logged-in to the website of the store; or based on a user profile that the Application or “app” of the AR-based navigation may request from users to fill out); whereas Food-Maker-3 may bid to pay to the store 60 cents for each placement of navigation information which promotes his Bread but only to users that requested to navigate to the Breads Area. Then, when a male user Adam requests to navigate to the Milk department, Food-maker-1 wins the real-time bidding and his product is placed in the Augmented Reality navigation route or the VR route displayed or conveyed to the user; whereas, when a female user Betty, age 34, requests to navigate to the Fruits area, Food-Maker-2 wins the real-time bidding.”; Chachek, [0096])
Food-Maker-2 pays the store for each placement of navigation information which promotes their soda product to users that are females in the age range of 30-40 years old. When a female user Betty, who is age 34 (statistic), requests to navigate to the fruits area Food-Maker-2 has his soda product placed in the VR route displayed to the user. Thus, based on the statistics of Betty being female and 34, the route generated to the fruits area includes having the soda placed on VR route displayed to Betty (the movement route being generated using a statistic associated with a real user moving in the facility). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date, to modify the system of Chachek by adding the feature of the movement route being generated using a statistic associated with a real user moving in the facility, in order to enable marketers to use modules allow an advertiser to define and launch an advertising campaign that would be implemented to a particular retail store, towards a particular type of audience of users (e.g., only towards females under the age of 40 years), with regard to a particular product, with regard to a particular type of promotion or advertisement or other marketing content that would be VR-based generated and displayed to such users, as taught by Chachek ([0096]).
Claim 16 is a program analogous to the device of claim 1, is similar in scope and is rejected under the same rationale. Claim 1 has an additional limitation. Re: claim 16, Chachek teaches
16. A program for causing a computer to function as:... (“The present invention may be implemented by using code or program code or machine-readable instructions or machine-readable code, which is stored on a non-transitory storage medium... such that the program or code or instructions, when executed by a processor or a machine or a computer, cause such device to perform a method in accordance with the present invention.”; Chachek, [0358])
The invention is implemented using program code, such that when executed by a processor, causes the device to perform the method.
Re: claim 6, Chachek teaches
6. The data processing device according to claim 1, wherein the generation unit generates a heat map that indicates a distribution of population density during movement of the person model along the movement route. (“The heat map may represent the traffic of multiple customers in the store at a particular time-slot; or, may be a user-specific/user-tailored heat map that shows the heat map of a specific user at a specific time-slot in this specific store;”; Chachek, [0074])
The heat map represents the traffic of multiple customers in the store at a particular time.
(“... navigation routes to an in-venue destination may be modified or generated by the system in order to intentionally include (or preclude) a particular route-segment or venue-segment or venue-region, due to one or more reasons or conditions; for example, dynamically navigating user Adam from Breads to Eggs in a route that avoids Aisle 5 because based on localization of users in the store, Aisle 5 is currently extremely crowded (e.g., has at least 15 persons in that aisle at this time);”; Chachek, [0076])
The navigation routes to an in-venue destination is modified based on, for example, navigating user Adam from Bread to Eggs in a route that avoids Aisle 5 based on localization of users in the store (heat map that indicates a distribution of population density during movement of the person along the movement route). Aisle 5 is currently extremely crowded.
Re: claim 11, Chachek teaches
11. The data processing device according to claim 1, wherein the generation unit acquires the statistic from a video image captured at the facility. (“... the system may deduce or determine the location of the user within the store based on image analysis and/or computerized vision algorithms and/or OCR operations of one or more images or frames captured by the camera of the smartphone of the user, which enable the system to determine, based on image analysis, that the user is now precisely located in front of the Corn Flakes product shelf.”; Chachek, [0111])
The system determines a location of the user within the store based on, for example, image analysis of frames (video image) captured by a camera of the smartphone of the user. The image analysis enables the system to determine the precise location of the user (acquires the statistic from a video image captured at the facility).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chachek as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Domae et al. U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0303947.
Re: claim 12, Chachek teaches
12. The data processing device according to claim 1, wherein the generation unit sets an action corresponding to a position of the movement route of the person model, and applies posture data corresponding to the action to the person model. (“A user may be inside the store (or other mapped environment) and may utilize a smartphone (or other portable electronic device) to request assistance with in-store navigation or wayfinding or route guidance... Based on the user’s input, the user’s electronic device, locally and/or with assistance of a remote server, may operate as follows:... (b) extract or deduce the precise current in-store-location of the user; (c) determine a walking route from the current location to the destination based on the Store Map and by utilizing a suitable route guidance algorithm; (d) generation turn-by turn walking instructions for such route, and convey them to the user by voice and/or text and/or animation and/or other means, as a bulk set of instructions, or as a gradually exposed set of instructions that keeps being updated as the user walks.”; Chachek, [0063], [0064])
Based on the user’s input, the user’s electronic device generates turn-by turn walking instructions that are conveyed as, for example text or animation, and are updated (an action) as the user walks (the generation unit sets an action corresponding to a position of the movement route of the person model). Chachek is silent regarding applies posture data corresponding to the action to the person model, however, Domae teaches this limitation.
(“The traveling control unit 223 performs control in such a way that the performer avatar in the virtual space travels (moves) in an area in which the user avatar corresponding to the user is arranged based on a characteristic of the user who views the performer avatar. The “characteristic of the user” can also include a characteristic of the user avatar (such as the position or motion of the user avatar). The traveling control unit 223 may determine the traveling route based on the characteristic of the user and then control movement of the performer avatar. For example, the traveling control unit 223 controls the traveling route of the performer avatar (movement of a display position of the performer avatar) based on the positions of the user avatars corresponding to one or more users whose predefined characteristics satisfy a condition.”; Domae, [0059], Fig. 3)
The traveling control unit (generation unit) determines the traveling route based on the characteristics of the user, which include the position or motion of the user avatar (apply posture data corresponding to the action to the person model). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date, to modify the system of Chachek by adding the feature of applies posture data corresponding to the action to the person model, in order to improve a connection between a performer and a viewer in a virtual space, as taught by Domae ([0006]).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chachek as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dibra et al. U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0201565.
Re: claim 14, Chachek is silent regarding the generation unit generates the 3D model for forming a sufficient number of the CG images for AI learning, however, Dibra teaches
14. The data processing device according to claim 1, wherein the generation unit generates the 3D model for forming a sufficient number of the CG images for AI learning. (“The computational module might (a) generate a first plurality of three-dimensional (3D) models from the first plurality of 2D images, (b) generate a second plurality of 3D models from the second plurality of 2D images, (c) train the convolutional neural network with training images being 3D models from the first plurality of 3D models and a first ground truth for the input 3D model is a post-surgery 3D model from the second plurality of 3D models,”; Dibra, [0010])
The computation module (generation unit) generates a first plurality of 3D models and a second plurality of 3D models (generates the 3D model). These 3D models are used to train the neural network (AI learning) with training images (CG images) from the first and second plurality of 3D models (for forming a sufficient number of the CG images for AI learning). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date, to modify the system of Chachek by adding the feature of the generation unit generates the 3D model for forming a sufficient number of the CG images for AI learning, in order to provide for an improved interaction that can provide a marker-less tool based on augmented reality and mixed reality for pre-visualization without the need of depth sensors, as taught by Dibra ([0047]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5, 7-10 and 13 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: None or the prior art teaches or suggests:
From claim 2 - wherein the generation unit generates the movement route of the person model by combining calculation for obtaining a movement route for each group of multiple groups including the multiple person models, and calculation for obtaining a movement route, on a basis of the movement route for each of the groups, for each person of the multiple person models constituting the groups. Claims 3-5 and 7-10 depend from claim 2 and include all of the limitations of claim 2.
From claim 13 - wherein the generation unit combines multiple posture data measured or imaged at the facility and each indicating a different portion of the posture data to generate new posture data as 3D posture data represented by specific person feature points, converts the 3D posture data into directional vectors to generate posture data expressed by the multiple directional vectors, combines the posture data that is one posture data with the posture data that is different posture data and has a predetermined portion highly similar to a corresponding portion of the one posture data, and applies the combined posture data to the person model.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DONNA J RICKS whose telephone number is (571)270-7532. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:30am-5pm EST (alternate Fridays off).
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, Devona Faulk can be reached on 571-272-7515. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/Donna J. Ricks/Examiner, Art Unit 2618
/DEVONA E FAULK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2618
Prosecution Insights