DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-15) in the reply filed on 09/10/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 16-24 have been withdrawn.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements submitted on 08/12/2024 have been considered by the Examiner and made of record in the application file.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
a) Claims 1-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 and 15-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,062,207. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. All of the features and limitations recited in patent claims 1-9 are present in claims 1-9 of the current application. Similarly, all of the features and limitations in patent claims 15-20 are present in claims 10-15 of the current application.
b) Claims 1-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 and 16-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,749,027. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. The present claims disclose all of the features of the patent claims but are a broader version of the patent claims since the pose information of the patent claims indicate a position of a body portion of a person whereas in the present application, the pose information is based on an object.
c) Claims 1-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10, 18 and 20 U.S. Patent No. 10,810,415 B1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Patent claim 1 recites obtaining images corresponding to a scene containing a person, generating pose information from the images, and transmitting the pose information in accordance with a bandwidth utilization criterion. Claims 2-4 further recite determining the pose information using neural networks, extracting features, forming a feature vector, and using a CNN, capsule network or RNN. Claims 5-6 recite positional and angular pose information. Claim 19 recites obtaining pose information using a first amount of bandwidth that is less than a second amount associated with receiving a video stream, and claim 20 recites a device configured to obtain images, generate pose information, and transmit the pose information in accordance with the bandwidth utilization criterion. The present claims generalize the patented person implementation to an object implementation and state the bandwidth saving relationship already reflected in the patented claims. These differences are obvious variants.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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, 7–12, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mandella (US 2016/0252965 A1) in view of Nijholt (“Mixed Reality Participants in Smart Meeting Rooms and Smart Home Environments”).
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Mandella discloses a method comprising:
at a processor (Mandella discloses processor 120 for preparing pose data 118, see paragraph 109);
receiving, from a sensor, sensor data that corresponds to a physical environment that includes an object (Mandella discloses an optical measuring arrangement including optical sensor 116, wherein the sensor images the real 3D environment and may comprise a CCD or CMOS image sensor; see paragraphs 106 and 112–115);
determining pose information for the object based on the sensor data (Mandella discloses processing raw image data obtained from sensor 116 to determine absolute pose data 118, including position parameters (x, y, z) and orientation parameters (φ, θ, ψ); see paragraphs 116, 118, 120, and 122); and
transmitting the pose information (Mandella discloses transmitting fully processed absolute pose data 118 in final numerical form over wireless communication link 132; see paragraphs 111 and 114).
Mandella fails to specifically disclose transmitting the pose information using a first amount of bandwidth that is less than a second amount of bandwidth associated with transmitting the sensor data.
In related art, Nijholt discloses capturing meeting participants using cameras and transforming the captured video data into a representation of the participants' poses and gestures. Nijholt teaches representing poses of the human body as skeleton poses and communicating the resulting skeleton data rather than transmitting the video data itself. Nijholt states that “communicating skeleton data requires substantially less bandwidth than video data.” Nijholt further explains that the body-posture information is estimated using a video camera. See Nijholt, Section 5.2, “VMR for distributed meeting assistance.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Nijholt into the teachings of Mandella to effectively reduce communication bandwidth while preserving the information needed to represent the object’s pose.
Regarding claims 2 and 11, Mandella, as modified by Nijholt, discloses the claimed invention wherein the sensor comprises an image sensor; wherein receiving the sensor data comprises receiving a set of one or more images captured by the image sensor; and wherein determining the pose information includes generating the pose information based on the set of one or more images captured by the image sensor. (Mandella, see paragraphs 113, 115-116, 118, 120 and 122)
Regarding claims 3 and 12, Mandella, as modified by Nijholt, discloses the claimed invention wherein forgoing transmission of the sensor data. (Nijholt, see section 5.2)
Regarding claims 7 and 15, Mandella, as modified by Nijholt, discloses the claimed invention wherein receiving the sensor data comprises receiving the sensor data from a wearable computing device that a person is wearing. (Mandella, see paragraphs 243-246 and figure 23)
Regarding claims 8, 9 and 14, Mandella, as modified by Nijholt, discloses the claimed invention wherein determining the pose information for the object comprises determining a position and orientation of the object within the physical environment. (Mandella, paragraphs 107, 109, 118 and 122)
Claims 4–6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mandella in view of Nijholt, and further in view of Walch et al (“Image-Based Localization Using LSTMs for Structured Feature Correlation”).
Regarding claims 4 and 13, Mandella, as modified by Nijholt, discloses the claimed invention except for wherein wherein determining the pose information comprises: providing the sensor data to a neural network system; and determining, by the neural network system, the pose information for the object.
In related art, Walch discloses providing the sensor data to a neural network system; and determining, by the neural network system, the pose information for the object. (sections 2.1, 2.2, also see figure 3)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Walch into the teachings of Mandella and Nijholt to effectively provide a way to determine pose from the received sensor data.
Regarding claim 5, Mandella, as modified by Nijholt and Walch, discloses the claimed invention wherein providing the sensor data to the neural network system comprises: generating a feature vector based on features extracted from the sensor data; and inputting the feature vector into the neural network system. (sections 2.1, 2.2, also see figure 3)
Regarding claim 6, Mandella, as modified by Nijholt and Walch, discloses the claimed invention wherein the neural network system comprises a convolution neural network (CNN), a capsule network, or a recurrent neural network (RNN). (sections 2.1, 2.2, also see figure 3)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BOBBAK SAFAIPOUR whose telephone number is (571)270-1092. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Stephen Koziol can be reached at (408) 918-7630. 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.
/BOBBAK SAFAIPOUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2665
