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 .
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: “the training device” and “a processing device” in claims 1-6.
Claims 1-6 are interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) because they use generic placeholders : “the training device” and “a processing device” that are coupled with functional language “training”, “acquiring” without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
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.
Applicant discloses the hardware support of a training device as “ a computer”, See Specification: “[0134] For example, the training device 1 is a computer and includes ROM (Read Only Memory) 1a, RAM (Random Access Memory) 1b, a CPU (Central Processing Unit) 1c, and a HDD (Hard Disk Drive) 1d.”
Applicant provides hardware support of “a processing device” as a computer in specification [0136]…” [0138] A hardware configuration similar to FIG. 15 is applicable also to the arithmetic device 5 of the training system 11 and the processing device 7 of the analysis system 20. Or, one computer may function as the training device 1 and the arithmetic device 5 in the training system 11. One computer may function as the training device 1 and the processing device 7 in the analysis system 20.”)
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 § 112
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.
Claims 1-9 are 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.
Claims 1, 7 and 9 recite, “a first model outputting pose data of a pose of a human body included in a photographed image or a rendered image when the photographed image or the rendered image is input, an actual person being visible in the photographed image, the rendered image being rendered using a human body model,”
The first clause of the limitation needs a photographed image or a rendered image. Bul later the limitation needs both photographed image and rendered image. The limitation is ambiguous because if the first clause starts with a photographed image, the following clause “the rendered image being rendered using a human body model” is out of scope. Similarly if the first clause starts with a photographed image, the following clause “the rendered image being rendered using a human body model”. Similarly, if the first clause starts with a rendered image, the following clause “an actual person being visible in the photographed image” is out of scope.
Additionally, Claim 1 recites, “the first model being trained to reduce an accuracy of the determination by the second model, the second model being trained to increase the accuracy of the determination by the second model.” These limitations are not a device element/structure which are part of the training device but they are placed (at indentation) as they are elements of the device. These two limitations describe limiting the first model and the second model. The way claim is presented the scope of the limitations is not clear. Proper indentation and “wherein” clause may fix the scope of the limitations. Independent claims 7 and 9 also have similar problems of claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-6, and 8 are also rejected by virtue of dependency.
Claim 6 recites, “A processing device, the processing device acquiring time-series data of a change of a pose over time by inputting a plurality of work images to the first model trained by the training device according to claim 1,
a person when working being visible in the plurality of work images.”
There is no proper scope of the clause, “a person when working being visible in the plurality of work images.” Claims 6 adds a processing device with the training device of claim 1. A person is not a device element that can be added to the device. Another possibility is applicant wanted to use “wherein” to limit the scope of work images.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claim 1 is allowable over prior art because Kanazawa ( US patent publication: 202203012227A) teaches, a training device, the training device training:
a first model outputting pose data of a pose of a human body included in a photographed image or a rendered image when the photographed image or the rendered image is input, an actual person being visible in the photographed image, the rendered image being rendered using a human body model, the human body model being virtual; The underlined limitation is not mapped due to 112(b). (“[0147] While the foregoing description refers to a colorizer CNN that performs part segmentation and colorization, other models can also be trained to colorize images that depict a person. For example, a model may be trained to detect a pose of a person depicted in the image and to perform colorization. Pose detection may include, e.g., detecting a plurality of keypoints of a person. For example, keypoints may include image pixels that correspond to one or more of head, shoulders, elbows, wrists, hips, knees, and ankles of a person depicted in the image. Pose detection may also include detecting connections between these points, e.g., skeletal connections.”) and
Hu et al. ( US patent publication: US 20230169634 ) teaches, a second model determining whether the pose data is based on one of the photographed image or the rendered image, (“[0017] Also, the generative model may be trained to minimize reconstruction loss of the discriminative model by inputting the defect data and degraded data based on the defect data to the discriminative model. The discriminative model can be trained to output authenticity information by determining whether the input image is actual data or virtual defect data and to minimize an error of the authenticity information.”) but doesn’t teach so when the pose data is input.
Hu teaches, the second model being trained to increase the accuracy of the determination by the second model. (Paragraph {0017] any training of model always increase the accuracy of the determination of the same model )
The combination of prior art fails to expressly teach, the first model being trained to reduce an accuracy of the determination by the second model. As a result as a whole the combination of prior art fails to teach claim 1.
Claim 7 is directed to a method having the similar limitations of claim 1. Claim 9 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium having the similar limitations of claim 1. So Claim 7 and Claim 9 also don’t have prior art rejection.
Dependent claims 2-6 and 8 also don’t have prior art rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tapas Mazumder whose telephone number is (571)270-7466. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-5:00 PM PST.
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, Alicia Harrington can be reached at 571-272-2330. 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.
/TAPAS MAZUMDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2615