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 .
Election/Restrictions
As set forth in the Action mailed 24 June 2026, this application contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct species of determining unstable posture:
Species A: claim 4 directed to determining unstable posture in a case where a line segment extending from the reference point of the person in the gravitational direction does not fall within a predetermined range determined based on the plurality of specific positions corresponding to the person classified in G06V40/103
Species B: claims 5 and 6 directed determining a type of posture of the person based on the plurality of specific positions, and wherein whether the person is in an unstable posture is determined based on the reference point corresponding to the determined type of posture classified in A61B5/1116;
Species C: claim 9 directed to wherein a type of the unstable posture is determined based on a temporal change of the unstableness degree of the person classified in G06V40/23.
Claim 1-3, 7-8, and 10-15 are generic with respect to Species A-C.
In the Reply filed 17 August 2026 Applicant elected Species A without traverse. Thus, claims 1-4, 7-8, and 10-15 are being examined while claims 5, 6, and 9 are withdrawn as being directed to non-elected inventions.
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.
The following title is suggested: Determining Unstable Posture Based on Positional Relationship Between Body Reference Point, Body Support Area, and Gravitational Direction
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 7, 8, and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sternitzke (US 2022/0331028 A1).
Claim 1
In regards to claim 1, Sternitzke discloses a video image processing apparatus comprising:
one or more memories storing instructions; and one or more processors that, upon execution of the stored instructions {Figs. 1, 3 including service robot 17 with processing unit 9 and memory 10 and base station administration module 160 with processing unit 161 and memory 162, [0144] storing rules and programs for implementing the disclosed methods, [0137]-[0140], [0146]} are configured to:
acquire a video image {Fig. 1, camera 185 and other image sensors in the sensor suit 3 such as LIDAR 1, radar sensor 194 and 3D camera. Fig. 10, robot 17 captures video of a person in step 1005, [0185]},
determine a plurality of specific positions of a person in the acquired video image {Fig. 10, [0185] including detecting a human patient’s movements, body poses over the course of time using rule set 150 that may include a trained neural network. See also the visual person tracking module 112 and OpenPose discussed below determining specific positions (e.g. joints) of the person},
determine a gravitational direction in at least a part of an area in the acquired video image, and determine whether the person is in an unstable posture based on a determination result of the plurality of specific positions of the person and a determination result of the gravitational direction {the service robot 17 also detects falls of persons while noting that a fall is considered an unstable posture or otherwise indicative of an unstable posture, [0312]-[0321] including visual person tracking module 112 using OpenPose or other software to create and track an skeleton model of a person in which body joints are represented as skeleton points and body parts are connected using direction vectors connecting the points. As to “gravitational direction”, the method uses the vertical direction component “points towards the center of the earth”,[0316], and detects unstable posture/falls using the orientation of a direction vector of the spine and/or legs as compared with the vertical/gravitational direction including determining body support area by means of a vertical projection of the tracked person on the floor.
See also fall risk evaluation, Figs. 35, 37, [0332]-[0340].
See also sitting balance determination in [0341]-[0345] which determines the stability/unstable nature of a sitting posture in which skeleton points of knees, pelvis, shoulder, head, etc., are used to detect and evaluate the orientation of a person’s body parts/limbs to determine the unstable posture. Including a direction vector drawn between shoulder and hip which is compared against the (gravitation direction) vertical perpendicular 3601, Fig. 37, to determine sitting balance (unstable posture measurement).
See also Fig. 40 balance determination in which the deviation from perpendicular (gravitation direction) of direction vector (foot, knee or hip to skeleton point (reference point) above) determines unstable 3636 or stable 3635 postures as per [0350]-[0353]}
Claim 2
In regards to claim 2, Sternitzke discloses wherein the plurality of specific positions includes at least a position regarding one or more of a joint, a head, an eye, a nose, and a mouth of the person {see above including visual person tracking module 112 and OpenPose discussed below determining specific positions (e.g. joints) of the person}.
Claim 3
In regards to claim 3, Sternitzke discloses wherein a reference point of the person and a body support area of the person are identified based on the plurality of specific positions of the person, and wherein whether the person is in an unstable posture is determined based on a positional relationship between the reference point and the body support are
{see claim 1 mapping including Stenitzke’s method using the vertical direction component “points towards the center of the earth”,[0316], and detects unstable posture/falls using the orientation of a direction vector of the spine and/or legs as compared with the vertical/gravitational direction including determining body support area by means of a vertical projection of the tracked person on the floor.
See also fall risk evaluation, Figs. 35, 37, [0332]-[0340].
See also sitting balance determination in [0341]-[0345] which determines the stability/unstable nature of a sitting posture in which skeleton points of knees, pelvis, shoulder, head, etc., are used to detect and evaluate the orientation of a person’s body parts/limbs to determine the unstable posture. Including a direction vector drawn between shoulder and hip which is compared against the (gravitation direction) vertical perpendicular 3601, Fig. 37, to determine sitting balance (unstable posture measurement).
See also Fig. 40 balance determination in which the deviation from perpendicular (gravitation direction) of direction vector (foot, knee or hip to skeleton point (reference point) above) determines unstable 3636 or stable 3635 postures as per [0350]-[0353]}.
Claim 4
In regards to claim 4, Sternitzke discloses wherein the person is determined to be in an unstable posture in a case where a line segment extending from the reference point of the person in the gravitational direction does not fall within a predetermined range determined based on the plurality of specific positions corresponding to the person {see claim 3 mapping}.
Claims 5, 6, and 9 Withdrawn-Non-elected
Claim 7
In regards to claim 7, Sternitzke discloses wherein the gravitational direction is determined for each of one or more areas in the video image {see above mapping of claim 1}.
Claim 8
In regards to claim 8, Sternitzke discloses wherein an unstableness degree of the person is further determined based on the determination result of the plurality of specific positions and the determination result of the gravitational direction {see claim 1 mapping
Including, as to “gravitational direction”, the method using the vertical direction component “points towards the center of the earth”,[0316], and detects unstable posture/falls using the orientation of a direction vector of the spine and/or legs as compared with the vertical/gravitational direction including determining body support area by means of a vertical projection of the tracked person on the floor.
See also fall risk evaluation, Figs. 35, 37, [0332]-[0340].
See also sitting balance determination in [0341]-[0345] which determines the stability/unstable nature of a sitting posture based on the determination of the plurality of specific positions (e.g. skeleton points of knees, pelvis, shoulder, head, etc.) which are used to detect and evaluate the orientation of a person’s body parts/limbs to determine the unstable posture. Including a direction vector drawn between shoulder and hip which is compared against the (gravitation direction) vertical perpendicular 3601, Fig. 37, to determine sitting balance (unstable posture measurement).
See also Fig. 40 balance determination in which the deviation from perpendicular (gravitation direction) of direction vector (foot, knee or hip to skeleton point (reference point) above) determines unstable 3636 or stable 3635 postures as per [0350]-[0353]}
Claim 10
In regards to claim 10, Sternitzke discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
detect a body support instrument from the video image, and wherein whether the person is in an unstable posture is determined based on the determination result of the plurality of specific positions of the person, the determination result of the gravitational direction, and a detection result of the body support instrument
{see claim 1 mapping including, as to “gravitational direction”, the method using the vertical direction component “points towards the center of the earth”,[0316], and detects unstable posture/falls using the orientation of a direction vector of the spine and/or legs (body supports) as compared with the vertical/gravitational direction. See also determining body support area by means of a vertical projection of the tracked person on the floor.}
Claim 11
In regards to claim 11, Sternitzke discloses wherein the gravitational direction is determined based on a reference point corresponding to a posture of the person in the video image {see claim 1 mapping including, as to “gravitational direction”, the method using the vertical direction component “points towards the center of the earth”,[0316], and detects unstable posture/falls using the orientation of a direction vector of the spine and/or legs as compared with the vertical/gravitational direction including determining body support area by means of a vertical projection of the tracked person on the floor.}
Claims 12-15
The rejection of device claims 1, 3, 4; 1 above applies mutatis mutandis to the corresponding limitations of method claims 12-14 and computer readable medium claim 15 while noting that the rejection above cites to both device and method disclosures. For the computer readable storage medium storing program limitations of claim 15 see
memory 162, [0144] storing rules and programs for implementing the disclosed methods, [0137]-[0140], [0146]
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael R Cammarata whose telephone number is (571)272-0113. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7am-5pm 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, Matthew Bella can be reached at 571-272-0113. 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.
/MICHAEL ROBERT CAMMARATA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2667
Prosecution Insights