CTNF 18/751,880 CTNF 100239 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority 02-27 AIA Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 18/751,880 (the instant application) , filed on 24 June 2024 . Preliminary Amendment The preliminary amendments filed on 24 Jun 2024 and 6 September 2024 have been received and entered. The application is being examined in light of these amendments . Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 24 June 2024 and 26 February 2026 were received and the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner. Specification 06-11 AIA 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. 06-11-01 AIA The following title is suggested: Action Estimation of a Person Informed by the State of the Person by an Image Processing Apparatus, an Image Processing Method, and a Storage Medium Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim s 8, 9, and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 8 line 4, delete the comma between "changed information" and "to a recognition" such that it is clear that the to "set" action applies to the "an action" and it is being set to "a recognition result". Claim 9 line 3, delete the comma between "in an image" and "based on" such that it is clear that the "area in which an action" is based on the "a plurality of pieces of . . . information". Claim 10 line 3, delete the comma between "the predetermined state" and "based on". Further, claim 10 line 5, delete the comma between "predetermined action" and "and based on". Doing so makes it clear that the determination is based on the likelihoods from both image groups . Appropriate correction is required. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation Regarding claim 2, the examiner understands the two instances of "a predetermined threshold" to be referring to separate thresholds, one associated with the first likelihood and the other associated with the second likelihood. Regarding claim 10, the examiner notes that they are interpreting "determine the predetermined state" as being the action of selecting a state from among all possible states as being the predetermined state. The determination of the predetermined state is based on the first and second likelihood from a first image group and a second image group. The first image group is defined as "including a person estimated to take the predetermined action". However, there are no defining characteristics of the second image group other than it being "different from the first image group". Therefore, the examiner is giving the second image group a broad interpretation of any group of images that do not belong to the first image group. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claim 10 is 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. Regarding claim 10, line 9 recites "a predetermined action". It is unclear if this is the same predetermined action from earlier in the claim or if it is a new item. For the purpose of examination, the examiner interprets it as the same predetermined action from earlier in the claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea – mental process without significantly more. MPEP 2106 details the analysis for determining the eligibility of an invention as completed below. The independent claims: Claims 1, 11, and 12 Claim 1 Claim 1 elements: Memory and processors claimed in broad terms Specify a position of an organ or a person in an image. Per the applicant's specification paragraph [0029], an organ is understood as a body landmark or joint. Specifying is understood as an identification or notation of the position. Acquire posture estimation information. Posture information is understood as an estimation of a pose of a person, such as laying down, striding, sitting, etc. or as estimating a rectangle around a person as stated in the applicant's specification paragraph [0030]. Estimate an action of the person. Determine a state of the person. The state is understood as an indication of person generally similar to pose estimation or as an estimation of the quality of the person identification in the image based on occlusion or other obstructions as stated in the applicant's specification [0036]. Determine if the action is a predetermined action and if the state is a predetermined state. If so, change the estimated action of the person. Step 1: The claim is directed to at least an apparatus and a process. Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites a judicial exception in B), C), D), E), and F). Regarding B), a person of ordinary skill in the art may mentally perform the step to specify or recognize the position of a person and "organs" of a person in an image. Regarding C), a person may mentally perform the step of estimating posture information of a person by, for example, drawing a person rectangle using a pen on an image. Regarding D), a person may mentally perform the step of estimating an action of a person. Regarding E), a person may mentally perform the step of determining a state of a person including determining whether the image of the person is occluded or cutoff. Regarding F), a person may mentally perform the step of determining if an action is a predetermined action and if a state is a predetermined state and make a decision to correct or change the action accordingly. For example, a person may monitor a video feed of a room and upon seeing an action decide to observe more closely. If they observe that their view is obstructed they would reconsider the determination of the action until the view is no longer obstructed. Therefore, they would mentally change the determined action based on a predetermined action, such as falling, and a predetermined state, such as the target person being obstructed in the image. Therefore, the claim recites the judicial exception of abstract idea – mental process. Step 2A Prong 2: The remaining element which may be an additional element is A), the memory and processors, i.e. a computer. The memory and processors are described in broad terms and are therefore understood as a generic computer. Therefore, the claim amounts to performing a mental process on a generic computer, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).III.C, which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Step 2B: The claim recites the additional element A), a generic computer. When considered as a whole, the additional element in combination with the abstract idea does not amount to more than the judicial exception. This is because the main thrust of the invention is the method to determine an action of a person in an image and reconsider the determination based on the state of the person and the type of action, which may be performed mentally. Therefore, the additional step of performing the mental process on a generic computer does not cause the claim to amount to more than the mental process, i.e. judicial exception. Therefore, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claim 11 Claim 11 is a method claim with steps corresponding to process performed in claim 1. Therefore, the analysis of claim 1 applies to claim 11 and claim 11 is likewise rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claim 12 Claim 12 is a non-transitory computer readable medium claim with elements and steps corresponding to the apparatus and process of claim 1. Therefore, the analysis of claim 1 applies to claim 11 and claim 12 is likewise rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. Dependent claims: Claims 2-10 Claim 2 Claim 2 recites additional elements to "generate first likelihood information", "generate second likelihood information", and "change the first likelihood information". Steps of to "generate" are processes which may be performed mentally as the human mind can generate likelihood information. Further, the step to "change" may be performed mentally as a person may consider knew information, such as the thresholds in relation to the likelihoods, and revise generated information. Therefore, claim 2 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the exception. Claim 3 Claims 3 narrows the definition of the predetermined action but does not introduce an additional element. Therefore, claim 3 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the exception. Claim 4 Claim 4 narrows the definition of the predetermined state but does not introduce an additional element. Therefore, claim 4 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the exception. Claim 5 Claim 5 narrows the definition of the posture estimation to include positional information but does not introduce an additional element. Therefore, claim 5 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the exception. Claim 6 Claim 6 narrows the definition of the posture information to include likelihood information but does not introduce an additional element. Therefore, claim 6 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the exception. Claim 7 Claim 7 narrows the definition of the posture information to include information indicating an area including the full body of the person but does not introduce an additional element. Therefore, claim 7 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the exception. Claim 8 Claim 8 recites additional elements of to "set . . . a recognition result" and "control output of information". These steps may be performed mentally. A person may, when an action information is changed, determine to set the new action as the final recognition result. Further, a person may mentally decide to control the output of information based on the recognition result. For example, if the action is not of note, such as a "standing still" action, they may not send the result as an output. On the other hand, if the action is of note, such as a "fall" action, they may send the result as an output. A person is capable of mentally making the decision to control an output based on the recognition result. Therefore, claim 8 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the exception. Claim 9 Claim 9 recites the acquiring of additional information indicating an area of a person but does not expressly use the acquired information in a step. Therefore, claim 9 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the exception. Claim 10 Claim 10 recites additional elements of to "determine the predetermined state" and "change the information". A person of ordinary skill in the art may mentally perform the process to "determine the predetermined state" based on received information including the likelihoods in the claim. Further, a person may mentally perform the process to "change" the action based on the predetermined action and the predetermined state. Therefore, claim 10 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the exception. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1, 3-9, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Zheng et al. (US 20200205697 A1; hereafter, Zheng) . Regarding claim 1, Zheng discloses: An image processing apparatus comprising: one or more memories storing instructions ([0044] one or more memories to store instructions. [0183] the memory may be non-transitory) ; and one or more processors ([0044] one or more processors to execute the instructions) that, upon execution of the stored instructions, are configured to: specify a position of an organ of a person in an image (the examiner understands "organs" as distinguishing features of the person's body such as keypoints or "parts (joint points) such as eyes, a nose, ears, shoulders, elbows, wrists, hips, knees, and ankles of the person", applicant's specification [0029]. Zheng [0109] and Fig. 6, in step 604 "process 600 can first identify a set of human keypoints for each detected person") ; acquire posture estimation information about a posture of the person based on the specified position of the organ (the examiner understands "posture information" broadly as information describing the pose or position of a person or as "a person rectangle enclosing an area of a person in the image", applicant's specification [0030], which may be understood as a bounding box. Zheng [0069] after keypoints, i.e. organs, are detected the detected person can be cropped out by a bounding box which by the applicant's specification may be understood as posture estimation information. Alternatively, [0059] the pose of the person may be estimated which may also be understood as a posture estimation information) ; estimate an action of the person based on the acquired posture estimation information ([0110] and Fig. 6, next in step 606 the action of the person is classified for the image. [0072] the action recognition is based on the outputs of the pose or posture estimation, therefore, the action estimate is based on the acquired posture estimation information) ; determine a state of the person based on the acquired posture estimation information (the examiner understands "a state" broadly as a description of the state of the person relating either to the person themselves or to the quality of the image capturing the person such as standing, sitting, or obstructed, see applicant's specification [0036] '"lower-half body occlusion" . . . , "cutoff" . . . , and "background erroneous detection"'. Zheng [0103] "an invalid pose filter 138 which can be used to check for invalid pose locations," such as when the center keypoints are too low showing cutoff, when certain keypoints are not detected showing obstruction or mistaken identification, and when a person is too close to the camera, which are each understood as determining a state of the person) ; and change information indicating the estimated action of the person ([0106] "the detected pose by action-recognition module 108 can be marked as invalid and is ignored by embedded fall-detection system 100." Ignoring an action is understood as changing the action information from an action being present to an action not being present) in a case where the estimated action of the person is a predetermined action ([0107] the sensors utilizing the state based filter are "fall-detection sensors". Further, [0112] and Fig. 6, step 610 determines if the action is a fall and whether to output a notification in step 612. Therefore, it is understood that the action filtered by the invalid pose filter is a fall action. Therefore, the information is changed in a case where the action is a fall which is understood as a predetermined action) and it is determined that the person is in a predetermined state ([0106] "if the computed invalidity score s inv is larger than a predetermined threshold," Determining that the invalidity score is high is understood as determining the person is in a predetermined state with "invalid" being the state) . Regarding claim 3, Zheng discloses the subject matter of claim 1. Zheng further discloses: The image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the predetermined action includes a falling action of a person ([0108] the system is a fall detection system, therefore the predetermined action is a fall) . Regarding claim 4, Zheng discloses the subject matter of claim 1. Zheng further discloses: The image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the predetermined state includes at least any of a state in which a lower-half body of a person is occluded, a state in which a person is cut off in an image ([0103] "Note that when a person is standing too close to camera 102 of embedded fall-detection system 100, the lower limbs of the person may be cut off by the field of view of the camera," See also [0106]) , a state where a background is erroneously detected as a person, and a state where a person is moving (as the claim says "at least any of" teaching only one item is sufficient to read on the claim) . Regarding claim 5, Zheng discloses the subject matter of claim 1. Zheng further discloses: The image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the posture estimation information includes positional information indicating the specified position of the organ ([0071] pose extraction may include filtering which includes "for a given video frame, the system model of each keypoint can use a series of position and velocity measurements observed over previous video frames to make a prediction of the current location of the keypoint." Therefore, the position is specified) . Regarding claim 6, Zheng discloses the subject matter of claim 5. Zheng further discloses: The image processing apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the posture estimation information includes likelihood information indicating a likelihood for the specified position of the organ ([0060] " can also estimate a “probability” of each detected keypoint. Here the probability of a detected keypoint represents a confidence score assigned to the detected keypoint by the pose-estimation model" therefore, the pose or posture estimation is understood to include a probability or likelihood for the organ position, i.e. keypoint) . Regarding claim 7, Zheng discloses the subject matter of claim 5. Zheng further discloses: The image processing apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the posture estimation information includes information indicating an area including a full body of a person ([0069] a bounding box is formed around the keypoints during the pose estimation which is understood as indicating an area including the full body) . Regarding claim 8, Zheng discloses the subject matter of claim 1. Zheng further discloses: The image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: set, in a case where the information indicating the action of the person is changed, an action of a person specified based on the changed information, to a recognition result of the action of the person (the examiner understand the action "to set" as setting an action as the final result, in other words, making a final determination on the action. [0112] and Fig. 6, step 610 makes a final determination on if a fall action was detected or not. This is understood as setting a recognition result) ; and control output of information from the image processing apparatus based on the recognition result ([0112] and Fig. 6, step 612 if it is determined that the action is a fall then an alarm is generated with is understood as an output. If it is determined that the action is not a fall the output is not generated. This is understood as controlling the output of information based on the recognition result) . Regarding claim 9, Zheng discloses the subject matter of claim 1. Zheng further discloses: The image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to acquire area information indicating an area in which an action of a person is to be changed in an image (Fig. 1, the pose-estimation module 106 which generates the crop or bounding box in [0069] feeds into the fall detection module 110 including the invalid-pose filter 138. Therefore, the crop or bounding box, which may be understood as area information, is used in determining the action and whether it is to be changed) , based on a plurality of pieces of the acquired posture estimation information ([0069] the crop or bounding box is based on the keypoints. The keypoints are understood as a plurality of pieces of acquired posture estimation information) . Regarding claim 11, claim 11 recites a method with steps corresponding to the elements of the system recited in claims 1. Therefore, the recited steps of this claim are mapped in the same manner as the corresponding elements in its corresponding system claim, claim 1. Regarding claim 12, claim 12 recites a non-transitory computer readable medium claim with elements corresponding to the elements of the system recited in claims 1. Therefore, the recited steps of this claim are mapped in the same manner as the corresponding elements in its corresponding system claim, claim 1 . Allowable Subject Matter 07-43-02 Claim 2 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. 07-43-02 Claim 10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. 13-03-01 AIA The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 2, the closest prior art, Zheng et al. (US 20200205697 A1; hereafter, Zheng), discloses generating a first likelihood for the estimated action of the person and generating a second likelihood for the state of the person. Shao (CN 115331776 A) discloses changing the first likelihood ("initial score" in Shao) based on the first likelihood ("action score" in Shao) but does not disclose doing so based on the first likelihood being greater than a predetermined threshold. Ng et al. (US 20200211154 A1; hereafter Ng) discloses changing a likelihood based on the second likelihood ("state score" in Ng) but does not disclose doing so based on the second likelihood being greater than a predetermined threshold. The prior does not disclose or reasonably suggest changing the first likelihood based on the first likelihood being greater than a predetermined threshold and the second likelihood being greater than a predetermined threshold, specifically because of the predetermined thresholds. The claim as a whole is found non-obvious over the prior art including: change the first likelihood information in a case where the likelihood indicated by the first likelihood information is greater than a predetermined threshold and the likelihood indicated by the second likelihood information is greater than a predetermined threshold. Claim 10 is dependent on claim 2 and likewise contains allowable subject matter . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. El Youssoufi et al., US 20220189210 A1, discloses a system for predicting human behavior while considering occluding objects. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA B CROCKETT whose telephone number is (571)270-7989. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8am-5pm. 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, John M Villecco can be reached at (571) 272-7319. 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. /JOSHUA B. CROCKETT/Examiner, Art Unit 2661 /JOHN VILLECCO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2661 Application/Control Number: 18/751,880 Page 2 Art Unit: 2661 Application/Control Number: 18/751,880 Page 3 Art Unit: 2661 Application/Control Number: 18/751,880 Page 4 Art Unit: 2661 Application/Control Number: 18/751,880 Page 5 Art Unit: 2661 Application/Control Number: 18/751,880 Page 6 Art Unit: 2661 Application/Control Number: 18/751,880 Page 7 Art Unit: 2661 Application/Control Number: 18/751,880 Page 8 Art Unit: 2661 Application/Control Number: 18/751,880 Page 9 Art Unit: 2661 Application/Control Number: 18/751,880 Page 10 Art Unit: 2661 Application/Control Number: 18/751,880 Page 11 Art Unit: 2661 Application/Control Number: 18/751,880 Page 12 Art Unit: 2661 Application/Control Number: 18/751,880 Page 13 Art Unit: 2661 Application/Control Number: 18/751,880 Page 14 Art Unit: 2661 Application/Control Number: 18/751,880 Page 15 Art Unit: 2661 Application/Control Number: 18/751,880 Page 16 Art Unit: 2661 Application/Control Number: 18/751,880 Page 17 Art Unit: 2661 Application/Control Number: 18/751,880 Page 18 Art Unit: 2661 Application/Control Number: 18/751,880 Page 19 Art Unit: 2661
Prosecution Insights