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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
[1] Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 8 recites “extract an ear of the examinee as a first feature point and extract an eye of the examinee as a second feature point based on the optical image; and generate a line segment connecting the first feature point and the second feature point as the posture information”. Original specification JP 2023-169563 does not support a line segment connecting the ear of the examinee and the eye of the examinee.
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.
[2] Claims 1-7, 9, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yoon et al. (“Yoon”) [US 2017/0032207].
Regarding claim 1, Yoon discloses the claim limitations as follows:
An image processing apparatus comprising at least one processor, wherein the processor is configured to: acquire an optical image of an examinee (i.e. 820) [fig. 8]; extract a plurality of feature points of a body of the examinee (i.e. feature points of the student) based on the optical image [paras. 0210-0211]; generate a line segment (i.e. dotted lines connecting points) determined based on any of the plurality of feature points as posture information (i.e. feature points of the body during particular position of the body), which is information indicating a posture of the examinee [fig. 12B; paras. 0210-0211]; generate a line segment corresponding to the line segment as the posture information as guide information (i.e. solid lines connecting feature points of the fitness coach), which is information for guiding a posture to be taken by the examinee (i.e. expected posture) [fig. 12B; paras. 0210-0211]; and display the posture information and the guide information [fig. 12B; paras. 0210-0211].
Regarding claim 2, Yoon discloses the claim limitations as follows:
The image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to display the posture information and the guide information to be superimposed on the optical image (i.e. dotted line and solid line are overlayed on the image) [fig. 12B; paras. 0210-0211].
Regarding claim 3, Yoon discloses the claim limitations as follows:
The image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to cause the posture information and the guide information to follow a posture change of the examinee (i.e. dotted line and solid line are overlayed on the image to show changes the student needs to make) [fig. 12B; paras. 0210-0211].
Regarding claim 4, Yoon discloses the claim limitations as follows:
The image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to generate, as the guide information, a line segment having a feature point closest to a support portion that supports the body of the examinee as a starting point (i.e. feature point on the thigh), among feature points present at both ends of the line segment (i.e. feature points at thigh and ankle) as the posture information [fig. 12B; paras. 0210-0211].
Regarding claim 5, Yoon discloses the claim limitations as follows:
The image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to set an orientation of the line segment as the guide information based on designation information (i.e. expected position based on the fitness coach) for designating a posture to be taken by the examinee (i.e. solid line shows changes the student needs to make) [fig. 12B; paras. 0210-0211].
Regarding claim 6, Yoon discloses the claim limitations as follows:
The image processing apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the processor is configured to acquire the designation information included in an imaging menu (i.e. initiation menu transmits the fitness coach based expected position) for a radiation image to be captured for the examinee (i.e. imaging device includes MRI and CT) [paras. 0047 and 0169].
Regarding claim 7, Yoon discloses the claim limitations as follows:
The image processing apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the processor is configured to acquire the designation information input by an operation of an input unit or voice (i.e. initiation menu transmits the fitness coach based expected position) [para. 0169].
Regarding claim 9, Yoon discloses the claim limitations as follows:
The image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to: extract a midpoint of left and right shoulder joints of the examinee as a third feature point (i.e. J1) and extract a midpoint of left and right greater trochanters of the examinee as a fourth feature point (i.e. J8) based on the optical image [fig. 6A]; and generate a line segment connecting the third feature point and the fourth feature point as the posture information (i.e. line connecting J1 and J8) [fig. 6A].
Regarding claims 13 and 14, these claims are rejected on similar basis as claim 1.
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 (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 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.
[3] Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon et al. (“Yoon”) [US 2017/0032207] in view of Feng et al. (“Feng”) [CN 113012042].
Regarding claim 8, Yoon discloses the claim limitations as set forth in claim 1.
Yoon does not explicitly disclose the following claim limitations:
The image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to: extract an ear of the examinee as a first feature point and extract an eye of the examinee as a second feature point based on the optical image; and generate a line segment connecting the first feature point and the second feature point as the posture information.
However, in the same field of endeavor Feng discloses the deficient claim limitations, as follows:
The image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to: extract an ear of the examinee as a first feature point (i.e. 17) and extract an eye of the examinee as a second feature point (i.e. 15) based on the optical image [fig. 4; English translation version page 6, para. 4]; and generate a line segment connecting the first feature point and the second feature point as the posture information (i.e. line connection 15 and 17) [fig. 4; English translation version page 6, para. 4].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Yoon with Feng to include ear and eye feature points, the reasoning being allow posture measurement for the head [Feng: English translation version page 6, para. 5].
Conclusion
[4] Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SATH V PERUNGAVOOR whose telephone number is (571)272-7455. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8 am-5 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, COLLEEN FAUZ can be reached at (571) 272-1667. 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.
/SATH V PERUNGAVOOR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2488
Prosecution Insights