CTNF 18/801,870 CTNF 98057 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. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/13/2024 is/are compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Office Action Summary Claim(s) 1 and 6-14 is/are interpreted under 35 USC 112(f). 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-4, 10-11, and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida (US 2025/0014342 A1) in view of Kim et al (US 2016/0110453 A1) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida (US 2025/0014342 A1) in view of Kim et al (US 2016/0110453 A1) , further in view of Berg et al (US 2011/0085734 A1) . 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim (s) 8-9 and 12-13 is/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. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA 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. 07-30-05 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. 07-30-06 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: “acquiring unit”, “extracting unit”, and “evaluating unit” in claim(s) 1 and 14 , “evaluating unit” in claim(s) 6-12, and “evaluating unit” and “output unit” in claim(s) 13. 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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-4, 10-11, and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida (US 2025/0014342 A1) in view of Kim et al (US 2016/0110453 A1) . Regarding claim(s) 1, 14, and 15, Yoshida teaches a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium that records a program ( Figure 2 ; and Paragraph [0040] ) , the program causing a computer to perform: acquiring a first moving image and a second moving image ( Figure 5 ; Paragraph [0060]: “a query moving image configured by ten frames […]”; and Paragraph [0061]: “The moving image to be processed is configured by 12 frames […]”) ; determining a plurality of frames of the second moving image ( Paragraph [0061]: “In the moving image to be processed, the first frame is a first relevance frame, the third frame is a second relevance frame, the seventh frame is a third relevance frame, the eighth frame is a fourth relevance frame, and the twelfth frame is a fifth relevance frame”) , the frames being frames in which a similarity of the second motion of the second moving image relative to the first motion of the first moving image is equal to or more than a predetermined value ( Figure 15 ; Paragraph [0155]: “includes a plurality of relevance frames including a human body having a pose in which a degree of similarity to a pose of a human body included in each of the plurality of key frames is equal to or more than a first threshold value”; Paragraph [0163]: “computes an integrated degree of similarity, based on a degree of similarity between a pose of a human body included in each of the plurality of key frames and a pose of a human body included in each of the plurality of relevance frames […]”; and Paragraph [0164]: “[…] as a moving image similar to the query moving image, the moving image to be processed in which the integrated degree of similarity is equal to or more than a third threshold value”) . Yoshida fails to teaches extracting a first motion from the first moving image; and extracting a second motion from the second moving image. However, Kim teaches to extracting a first motion from the first moving image ( Figure 2 ; Figure 4 ; Paragraph [0009]: “motion inquiry which inputs a choreography video which is captured by a user at real time when the user dances in front of a camera and inputs the choreography video as an inquiry […]”; and Paragraph [0010]: “analyzing the input motion inquiry video to extract position information for joints of an inquirer in every video frame; extracting a representative posture describer of the inquirer for every section based on posture describers extracted from the position information for joints of the inquirer; extracting the representative posture describer of contents for every point section referring to the search reference information”) ; and extracting a second motion from the second moving image ( Figure 3 ; Paragraph [0010]: “extracting the representative posture describer of contents for every point section referring to the search reference information”; and Paragraph [0012]: “search reference information may include position information for joints of a choreographer in the video frame”) . Yoshida discloses an information processing apparatus configured to acquire a query moving image and a moving image to be processed, and to determine a plurality of relevance frames from the moving image to be processed based on a degree of similarity between poses included in a plurality of key frames extracted from the query moving image and corresponding frames in the moving image to be processed, wherein the relevance frames are determined based on a degree of similarity equal to or greater than a threshold value. Kim discloses extracting human-joint information from a motion inquiry video and generating motion features using a Human Joint Extracting Unit and a Motion Feature Extracting Unit, and further discloses comparing motion features of an inquiry motion and stored choreography motions to determine similarity therebetween. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the system of Yoshida to incorporate the motion extraction techniques of Kim so that the similarity determination performed by Yoshida could be based on extracted motion features representing the motions of objects appearing in the respective moving images. Such modification would have predictably improved the accuracy and reliability of motion comparison by utilizing extracted motion information rather than relying solely on pose information, while preserving Yoshida's determination of a plurality of frames satisfying a similarity threshold. This motivation for the combination of Yoshida and Kim is supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III). Regarding claim(s) 2, Yoshida as modified by Kim teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, where Yoshida teaches wherein the number of frames differs between the first moving image and the second moving image ( Figure 5 ; Paragraph [0060]: “a query moving image configured by ten frames […]”; and Paragraph [0061]: “The moving image to be processed is configured by 12 frames […]”) . Regarding claim(s) 3, Yoshida as modified by Kim teaches information processing device according to claim 1, where Kim teaches wherein the first moving image is a moving image in which the first motion of a first target person is imaged ( Figure 1 ; Figure 2 ; Figure 4 ; Paragraph [0009]: “motion inquiry which inputs a choreography video which is captured by a user at real time when the user dances in front of a camera and inputs the choreography video as an inquiry […]”; and Paragraph [0010]: “analyzing the input motion inquiry video to extract position information for joints of an inquirer in every video frame; extracting a representative posture describer of the inquirer for every section based on posture describers extracted from the position information for joints of the inquirer”) , and the second moving image is a moving image in which the second motion of a second target person is imaged ( Figure 1 ; Figure 3 ; Paragraph [0010]: “extracting the representative posture describer of contents for every point section referring to the search reference information”; and Paragraph [0012]: “search reference information may include position information for joints of a choreographer in the video frame”) . Regarding claim(s) 4, Yoshida as modified by Kim teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, where Yoshida teaches wherein the first moving image is a moving image in which the first motion of a first target person is imaged ( Figure 5 ; and Paragraph [0079]: “a movement of a human body (a temporal change of a pose of a human body) indicated by the query moving image”) , the second moving image is a moving image in which the second motion of the first target person is imaged ( Figure 5 ; Figure 15 ; Paragraph [0061]: “In the moving image to be processed, the first frame is a first relevance frame, the third frame is a second relevance frame, the seventh frame is a third relevance frame, the eighth frame is a fourth relevance frame, and the twelfth frame is a fifth relevance frame”; and Paragraph [0155]: “includes a plurality of relevance frames including a human body having a pose in which a degree of similarity to a pose of a human body included in each of the plurality of key frames is equal to or more than a first threshold value”) , and the second moving image is a moving image captured before the first moving image or is a moving image captured after the first moving image ( Figure 5 ; Figure 15 ; Paragraph [0080]: “a moving image in which a plurality of relevance frames relevant to a plurality of key frames each are included and a time interval between the plurality of relevance frames is similar to a time interval between the plurality of key frames. The relevance frame is a frame including a human body having a pose similar to a pose of a human body included in the key frame.”; and Paragraph [0163]: “computes an integrated degree of similarity, based on a degree of similarity between a pose of a human body included in each of the plurality of key frames and a pose of a human body included in each of the plurality of relevance frames […]”) . Regarding claim(s) 10, Yoshida as modified by Kim teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, where Yoshida teaches wherein for a plurality of frames of the second moving image in which the similarity of the second motion of the second moving image relative to the first motion of the first moving image is equal to or more than the predetermined value, the evaluating unit evaluates the second motion relative to the first motion ( Figure 15 ; Paragraph [0061]: “In the moving image to be processed, the first frame is a first relevance frame, the third frame is a second relevance frame, the seventh frame is a third relevance frame, the eighth frame is a fourth relevance frame, and the twelfth frame is a fifth relevance frame”; Paragraph [0155]: “includes a plurality of relevance frames including a human body having a pose in which a degree of similarity to a pose of a human body included in each of the plurality of key frames is equal to or more than a first threshold value”; Paragraph [0163]: “computes an integrated degree of similarity, based on a degree of similarity between a pose of a human body included in each of the plurality of key frames and a pose of a human body included in each of the plurality of relevance frames […]”; and Paragraph [0164]: “[…] as a moving image similar to the query moving image, the moving image to be processed in which the integrated degree of similarity is equal to or more than a third threshold value”) . Regarding claim(s) 11, Yoshida as modified by Kim teaches the information processing device according to claim 10, where Kim teaches wherein the evaluating unit uses data indicating a movement of each of joints in the second motion relative to data indicating a movement of each of the joints in the first motion to evaluate the second motion relative to the first motion ( Figure 1 ; Figure 2 ; Figure 4 ; Paragraph [0010]: “analyzing the input motion inquiry video to extract position information for joints of an inquirer in every video frame […] comparing the representative posture describer of the inquirer for every section with the representative posture describer of contents for every point section to calculate the similarity and extracting contents including a motion video having the highest similarity from the database”; Paragraph [0012]: “The search reference information may include position information for joints of a choreographer in the video frame”; Paragraph [0014]: “may be extracted after extracting the position information of joints corresponding to each joint in the database based on the data amount of position information for the joints of the inquirer”; and Paragraph [0020]: “The posture describer may include a set of relative angle information between joints”) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida (US 2025/0014342 A1) in view of Kim et al (US 2016/0110453 A1) , further in view of Berg et al (US 2011/0085734 A1) . Regarding claim(s) 5, Yoshida as modified by Kim teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, but do not specifically teach wherein the similarity is a coefficient indicating a correlation between data regarding the first motion and data regarding the second motion. However, Berg teaches wherein the similarity is a coefficient indicating a correlation between data regarding the first motion and data regarding the second motion ( Paragraph [0025]: “for video comparison can determine if two video signals match by first extracting features from a first and second video signal, cross-correlating the extracted features thereby providing a cross-correlation score at each of a number of time lags; and then outputting an indication of a degree of match between the first and second video signals”; and Claim 1: “extracting features from a first video signal to provide a first feature-extracted signal; extracting features from a second video signal to provide a second feature-extracted signal; cross-correlating the first and second feature-extracted signals to provide a cross-correlation score at each of a plurality of time lags; and determining a similarity score between the first and second feature-extracted signals based on the cross-correlation scores.”) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the motion similarity determination of Yoshida and Kim to utilize the correlation-based similarity coefficient taught by Berg because correlation-based coefficients provide a known and predictable technique for quantifying the degree of similarity between motion-related data sequences, thereby improving the accuracy and robustness of motion comparison while achieving the same objective of identifying similar motions between moving images. This motivation for the combination of Yoshida , Kim , and Berg is supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III). Regarding claim(s) 6, Yoshida as modified by Kim and Berg teaches the information processing device according to claim 5, wherein the evaluating unit determines a plurality of frames of the second moving image in which the similarity of the second motion of the second moving image relative to the first motion of the first moving image is highest ( where Yoshida teaches in Paragraph [0162]: “determines a plurality of relevance frames relevant to each of the plurality of key frames”; and Paragraph [0163]: “computes an integrated degree of similarity, based on a degree of similarity between a pose of a human body included in each of the plurality of key frames and a pose of a human body included in each of the plurality of relevance frames, and a degree of similarity between a time interval between the key frames and a time interval between the relevance frames”; and where Kim teaches in Paragraph [0010]: “[…] comparing the representative posture describer of the inquirer for every section with the representative posture describer of contents for every point section to calculate the similarity and extracting contents including a motion video having the highest similarity from the database”) . Regarding claim(s) 7, Yoshida as modified by Kim and Berg teaches the information processing device according to claim 5, where Kim teaches wherein the evaluating unit determines, for each of a plurality of joints ( Paragraph [0010]: “analyzing the input motion inquiry video to extract position information for joints of an inquirer in every video frame”; Paragraph [0012]: “The search reference information may include position information for joints of a choreographer in the video frame”; and Paragraph [0014]: “may be extracted after extracting the position information of joints corresponding to each joint in the database based on the data amount of position information for the joints of the inquirer”) , and where Yoshida teaches a plurality of frames of the second moving image in which the similarity of the second motion of the second moving image relative to the first motion of the first moving image is equal to or more than the predetermined value ( Figure 15 ; Paragraph [0061]: “In the moving image to be processed, the first frame is a first relevance frame, the third frame is a second relevance frame, the seventh frame is a third relevance frame, the eighth frame is a fourth relevance frame, and the twelfth frame is a fifth relevance frame”; Paragraph [0155]: “includes a plurality of relevance frames including a human body having a pose in which a degree of similarity to a pose of a human body included in each of the plurality of key frames is equal to or more than a first threshold value”; Paragraph [0163]: “computes an integrated degree of similarity, based on a degree of similarity between a pose of a human body included in each of the plurality of key frames and a pose of a human body included in each of the plurality of relevance frames […]”; and Paragraph [0164]: “[…] as a moving image similar to the query moving image, the moving image to be processed in which the integrated degree of similarity is equal to or more than a third threshold value”) . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim (s) 8-9 and 12-13 is/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. Relevant Prior Art Directed to State of Art Sugano et al (US 2023/0068731 A1) are relevant prior art not applied in the rejection(s) above. Sugano discloses an image processing device comprising: a storage unit that stores a plurality of 3D models and a plurality, of 3D model feature amounts respectively corresponding to the plurality of 3D models; a search unit that searches for a 3D model having a feature amount similar to an input feature amount of a subject on a basis of the feature amount of the subject and the 3D model feature amounts stored in the storage unit; and an output unit that outputs the 3D model searched by the search unit, wherein the feature amount of the subject is bone information of the subject, and the search unit compares the bone information of the subject with bone information of the 3D model stored in the storage unit to search for the 3D model having bone information similar to the bone information of the subject, wherein the storage unit stores a moving image of the 3D model, and the search unit compares the feature amount of the subject with a corresponding feature amount of a frame of the 3D model randomly selected from the storage unit, and in a case where a degree of coincidence is lower than a predetermined threshold value, compares a corresponding feature amount of a frame obtained by shifting a time direction with respect to the selected frame with the feature amount of the subject. Kawai et al (US 2025/0054304 A1) are relevant prior art not applied in the rejection(s) above. Kawai discloses an image processing apparatus comprising: at least one memory storing instructions, and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to; analyze a motion of a target, based on capturing data, and determines one or more feature motions; detect a trigger from the capturing data or distribution data for distribution to one or more viewers being generated from the capturing data; and extract one or more of the determined feature motions of the target from the capturing data in response to detection of the trigger, and generates different distribution data for distribution to one or more viewers, based on the feature motion. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONGBONG NAH whose telephone number is (571) 272-1361. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 9:00 AM - 5:30 PM. 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, ONEAL MISTRY can be reached on 313-446-4912. 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. /JONGBONG NAH/Examiner, Art Unit 2674 /ONEAL R MISTRY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2674 Application/Control Number: 18/801,870 Page 2 Art Unit: 2674 Application/Control Number: 18/801,870 Page 3 Art Unit: 2674 Application/Control Number: 18/801,870 Page 4 Art Unit: 2674 Application/Control Number: 18/801,870 Page 5 Art Unit: 2674 Application/Control Number: 18/801,870 Page 6 Art Unit: 2674 Application/Control Number: 18/801,870 Page 7 Art Unit: 2674 Application/Control Number: 18/801,870 Page 8 Art Unit: 2674 Application/Control Number: 18/801,870 Page 9 Art Unit: 2674 Application/Control Number: 18/801,870 Page 10 Art Unit: 2674 Application/Control Number: 18/801,870 Page 11 Art Unit: 2674 Application/Control Number: 18/801,870 Page 12 Art Unit: 2674 Application/Control Number: 18/801,870 Page 13 Art Unit: 2674 Application/Control Number: 18/801,870 Page 14 Art Unit: 2674 Application/Control Number: 18/801,870 Page 15 Art Unit: 2674 Application/Control Number: 18/801,870 Page 16 Art Unit: 2674
Prosecution Insights