DETAILED ACTION
This action is pursuant to claims filed on 09/03/2024. Claims 1-13 are pending. A first action on the merits of claims 1-13 is as follows.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 10/24/2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the JP 2023182853 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
Reference character 200-3, mentioned in paragraph [0027], does not appear in the figures
Reference character 200-4, mentioned in paragraph [0027], does not appear in the figures
Reference character 200-5, mentioned in paragraph [0027], does not appear in the figures
Reference character 200-8, mentioned in paragraph [0027], does not appear in the figures
Reference character 200-9, mentioned in paragraph [0027], does not appear in the figures
Reference character 200-10, mentioned in paragraph [0027], does not appear in the figures
Reference character 200-11, mentioned in paragraph [0027], does not appear in the figures
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
Reference character 2-6 in Figure 1 does not appear in the specification
Reference character 2-7 in Figure 1 does not appear in the specification
Reference character 2-11 in Figure 4 does not appear in the specification
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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: “ an arithmetic processing unit” and “an image processing unit” in claims 1, 12, and 13.
Regarding “an arithmetic processing unit” in claims 1, 12, and 13:
(A) “configured to” is a generic placeholder for “means”
(B) The functional language that modified “an arithmetic processing unit” is the steps of “generate a calculation result representing the motion state based on a detection result of a sensor configured to detect the motion state”
(C) “configured to” is not modified by a sufficient structure for performing the claimed functions, therefore 35 U.S.C. is invoked.
Regarding “an image processing unit” in claims 1, 12, and 13:
(A) “configured to” is a generic placeholder for “means”
(B) The functional language that modified “an image processing unit” is the steps of “perform image processing on at least one of a photographed image obtained by photographing the motion state and a drawn image obtained by drawing the motion state”
(C) “configured to” is not modified by a sufficient structure for performing the claimed functions, therefore 35 U.S.C. is invoked.
The corresponding structure for the “arithmetic processing unit” and the “image processing unit” in claims 1, 12, and 13 configured to perform the steps of generating a calculation result and performing image processing on an image is detailed in paragraph [0100] of the specification (Each of the components included in the motion state monitoring apparatus 4 may be implemented by dedicated hardware. Further, some or all of the components may be implemented by, for example, a general purpose or dedicated circuit (Circuitry), a processor PRC, or a combination thereof. These components may be formed by a single chip or a plurality of chips connected to each other through a bus. Some or all of the components may be implemented by any combination of the above-described circuits and programs. Further, as the processor PRC, a CPU (Central Processing Unit), a GPU (Graphics Processing Unit), an FPGA (Field-programmable Gate Array), a quantum processor (quantum computer control chip) or the like can be used).
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 § 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 7 and 11-13 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.
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites the limitation “the reference” in line 8 in which there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites the limitation “a plurality of images” in line 2. It is unclear if this limitation is meant to refer to the photographed image from claim 1, line 7, the drawn image from claim 1, line 8, the image-processed image from claim 1, line 9, or different images. If it is meant to refer to any of the images from claim 1, it needs to refer back to it. If it is meant to refer to different images, it needs to be clearly distinguished from the images from claim 1. For purposes of examination, it is being interpreted as referring to any of the images from claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites the limitation “performing image processing” in line 15. It is unclear if this limitation is meant to refer to the image processing from line 7, or a different image processing. If it is meant to refer to the image processing from line 7, it needs to refer back to it. If it is meant to refer to a different image processing, it needs to be distinguished from the image processing from line 7. For purposes of examination, it is being interpreted as referring to the image processing from line 7.
Further regarding claim 12, the claim recites the limitation “the image” in line 15. It is unclear if this limitation is meant to refer to the photographed image from line 8, the drawn image from line 9, the image-processed image of line 10, or a different image. If it is meant to refer to any of the images introduced earlier in the claim, it needs to refer back to it. If it is meant to refer to a different image, it needs to be distinguished from the previously introduced images. For purposes of examination, it is being interpreted as referring to any of the previously introduced images.
Regarding claim 13, the claim recites the limitation “performing image processing” in line 17. It is unclear if this limitation is meant to refer to the image processing from line 8, or a different image processing. If it is meant to refer to the image processing from line 8, it needs to refer back to it. If it is meant to refer to a different image processing, it needs to be distinguished from the image processing from line 8. For purposes of examination, it is being interpreted as referring to the image processing from line 8.
Further regarding claim 13, the claim recites the limitation “the image” in line 17. It is unclear if this limitation is meant to refer to the photographed image from line 9, the drawn image from line 10, the image-processed image of line 11, or a different image. If it is meant to refer to any of the images introduced earlier in the claim, it needs to refer back to it. If it is meant to refer to a different image, it needs to be distinguished from the previously introduced images. For purposes of examination, it is being interpreted as referring to any of the previously introduced images.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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, 10, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Under the two-step 101 analysis, the claims fail to satisfy the criteria for subject matter eligibility.
Regarding Step 1, claims 1, 10, and 12-13 are all within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 1 and its dependent claims disclose a system (machine).
Claim 12 discloses a method (process).
Claim 13 discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium (machine).
Regarding Step 2A, Prong One, the independent claims 1, 12, and 13 recite an abstract idea. In particular, the claims generally recite the following:
generate a calculation result representing the motion state based on a detection result of a sensor configured to detect the motion state”
“perform image processing on at least one of a photographed image obtained by photographing the motion state and a drawn image obtained by drawing the motion state”
These elements recited in claims 1, 12, and 13 are drawn to abstract ideas since they involve a mental process that can be practically performed in the human mind including observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion and using pen and paper.
Generating a calculation result representing the motion state based on a detection result of a sensor configured to detect the motion state is drawn to an abstract idea since it is a mental process that can be practically performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pen and paper. A person of ordinary skill in the art could reasonably receive the detection result from the sensor on paper, and generate the calculation result mentally through the use of evaluation and judgement. These techniques are based on algorithms and calculations and evaluation, which can be performed by hand. The mathematics of generating a calculation result based on sensor measurements are not overly complicated to perform using pen and paper given enough time, therefore these are defined as abstract ideas. There is nothing to suggest an undue level of complexity in generating a calculation result representing the motion state based on a detection result of a sensor configured to detect the motion state.
Performing image processing on at least one of a photographed image obtained by photographing the motion state and a drawn image obtained by drawing the motion state is drawn to an abstract idea since it is a mental process that can be practically performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pen and paper. A person of ordinary skill in the art could reasonably receive the photographed image or the drawn image on paper, and perform image processing mentally or with the aid of pen and paper using evaluation and judgement. These techniques are based on algorithms and calculations and evaluation, which can be performed by hand. The mathematics of performing image processing are not overly complicated to perform using pen and paper given enough time, therefore these are defined as abstract ideas. There is nothing to suggest an undue level of complexity in performing image processing on at least one of a photographed image obtained by photographing the motion state and a drawn image obtained by drawing the motion state.
Regarding Step 2A, Prong Two, claims 1, 12, and 13 do not recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to the abstract idea. The additional elements merely:
Recite the words “apply it” or an equivalent with the judicial exception, or include instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely use the computer as a tool to perform the abstract ides (e.g., “an arithmetic processing unit” and “an image processing unit”), and
add insignificant extra-solution activity (the pre-solution activity of: using generic data-gathering components (e.g., “a sensor configured to detect the motion state”) or add insignificant post-solution activity (e.g., “a display unit configured to display the image-processed image and the calculation result in synchronization with each other”).
As a whole, the additional elements merely serve to gather information to be used by the abstract idea, while generically implementing it on a computer. There is no practical application because the abstract idea is not applied, relied on, or used in a meaningful way. The processing performed remains in the abstract realm, i.e., the result is not used for a treatment. No improvement to the technology is evident. Therefore, the additional elements, alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding Step 2B, claims 1, 12, and 13 do not include additional elements, alone or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., an inventive concept) for the same reasons as described above.
Claims 1, 12, and 13 do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. In particular, “a sensor configured to detect the motion state” does not qualify as significantly more because this limitation merely describes a generic data gathering step using a conventional sensor.
The generic data gathering step of a sensor configured to detect the motion state is nothing more than a conventional sensor used to gather data. Such sensors are evidenced by:
US Patent Application Publication No. 20150192413 (Bellusci) discloses conventional motion capture systems using sensors (Bellusci, [0002]; [0007]);
US Patent Application Publication No. 20150194454 (Kim) discloses conventional motion sensors (Kim, [0006]);
US Patent Application Publication No. 20150160620 (Gwynn) discloses motion measurement sensors as conventional (Gwynn, [0053]; [0054]);
US Patent Application Publication No. 20150153835 (Perez) discloses conventional motion capture using sensors ([0027).
Further, the element of a processor (the arithmetic processing unit and image processing unit) does not qualify as significantly more because this limitation is simply appending well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry (see Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014)) and/or a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than being stored on a computer readable medium which is a well-understood, routine and conventional activity previously known in the industry (see Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014); SAP Am. v. InvestPic, 890 F.3d 1016 (Fed. Circ. 2018)).
In view of the above, the additional elements individually do not integrate the exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the above judicial exception. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination (that is, as a whole) adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation, i.e., the computer is simply a tool to perform the process.
Regarding the dependent claims, claim 10 depends from claim 1. The dependent claim merely further defines the abstract idea or are additional data output that is well-understood, routine, and previously known to the industry.
For example, the following are dependent claims reciting abstract ideas and can be performed in the human mind or are extra-solution activity:
(Claim 10): “wherein the display unit further displays at least one of vital data and a walking speed” is a known extra-solution activity;
The dependent claim does not recite significantly more than the abstract ideas. Therefore, claims 1, 10, and 12-13 are rejected as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
Claims 1-2, 9, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nozaki (JP 2017080201). Citations to JP 2017080201 will refer to the English Machine Translation that accompanies this Office Action.
Regarding independent claim 1, Nozaki teaches a motion state monitoring system configured to monitor a motion state at a target part of a subject's body (Motion information acquisition part 151), comprising:
an arithmetic processing unit configured to generate a calculation result representing the motion state based on a detection result of a sensor configured to detect the motion state (Motion information analysis unit 152; [0016]: “The motion information acquired by each sensor of the motion information acquisition unit 151 is transmitted to the motion information analysis unit 152, where data analysis is performed”; [0017]: “The motion information analysis unit 152 analyzes each data acquired by the motion information acquisition unit 151 and converts the subject's movements into coordinate information.”. The coordinate information is the calculation result representing the motion state.);
an image processing unit configured to perform image processing on at least one of a photographed image obtained by photographing the motion state ([0009]: “This figure shows an example of a screen displayed on the display 212 of the information processing device 101 when the information processing device 101 starts taking images of the subject in step S302 of the present invention.”. The information processing device is the image processing unit that processes the photographed images.) and a drawn image obtained by drawing the motion state ([0009]: “This figure shows an example of skeletal information of a subject formed from the coordinate information of each joint”. The skeletal information is the drawn image.); and
a display unit configured to display the image-processed image and the calculation result in synchronization with each other ([0007]: “a display means for displaying the subject's skeletal information and skeletal information to be compared side by side, a setting reception means for receiving settings for the display format on the screen displayed by the display means”; [0009]: “This figure shows an example of a screen displayed on the display 212 of the information processing device 101 when extracting measurement results in the present invention. This figure shows an example of a screen displayed on the display 212 of the information processing device 101 after the measurement results have been extracted, according to the present invention … An example of a screen created by combining video footage captured and acquired by the motion information acquisition unit 151 with skeletal information” The display includes side by side display of the skeletal information (the drawn image, which is made from the calculation result) and the measurement results and video from the information processing device, which is the image-processed image.).
Regarding claim 2, Nozaki teaches the motion state monitoring system according to claim 1, wherein the image processing unit generates the drawn image of a 3D model obtained by drawing the motion state or the drawn image of an avatar obtained by drawing the motion state, and the display unit displays the generated drawn image of the 3D model or the avatar ([0152]: “As shown in Figure 26, the person (skeletal information) in the video above was facing right in Figure 23, but is facing left in Figure 26”; Fig. 26 shows the skeletal information being displayed as connected dotted lines over the subject, which is an avatar, and is displayed on the display.).
Regarding claim 9, Nozaki teaches the motion state monitoring system according to claim 2, wherein the image processing unit generates a figure indicating a movable area of the target part in the drawn image of the 3D model or the avatar, and the display unit displays the generated figure indicating the movable area ([0053]: “Furthermore, the system generates skeletal information of the subject based on the coordinate information. An example of coordinate information for each joint is shown in Figure 7”; [0057]: “The skeletal information displayed in areas 2102 and 2103 is calculated and generated based on the coordinate information of each joint acquired by the motion information acquisition unit 151”. The coordinate information for each joint is the figure indicating a movable area (the joints) displayed.).
Regarding claim 11, Nozaki teaches the motion state monitoring system according to claim 1, wherein the display unit displays a plurality of images obtained at different times ([0154]: “By reversing the image in this way, even if, for example, measurements were taken walking from left to right in the video a month ago, but this time measurements were taken from right to left, the walking direction can be standardized for both, making comparison easier and allowing for a more detailed understanding of the differences between the two”; [0155]: “the comparison screen allows for not only displaying the images being compared side-by-side, but also overlaying them”. The images being compared are both displayed, and the images can be from two different times, therefore the display displays a plurality of images obtained at different times.).
Regarding independent claim 12, Nozaki teaches a motion state monitoring method for monitoring a motion state at a target part of a subject's body by using a motion state monitoring system ([0001]: “This invention relates to an information processing device, an information processing method, and a program”; Motion information acquisition part 151), the motion state monitoring system comprising:
an arithmetic processing unit configured to generate a calculation result representing the motion state based on a detection result of a sensor configured to detect the motion state (Motion information analysis unit 152; [0016]: “The motion information acquired by each sensor of the motion information acquisition unit 151 is transmitted to the motion information analysis unit 152, where data analysis is performed”; [0017]: “The motion information analysis unit 152 analyzes each data acquired by the motion information acquisition unit 151 and converts the subject's movements into coordinate information.”. The coordinate information is the calculation result representing the motion state.);
an image processing unit configured to perform image processing on at least one of a photographed image obtained by photographing the motion state ([0009]: “This figure shows an example of a screen displayed on the display 212 of the information processing device 101 when the information processing device 101 starts taking images of the subject in step S302 of the present invention.”. The information processing device is the image processing unit that processes the photographed images.) and a drawn image obtained by drawing the motion state ([0009]: “This figure shows an example of skeletal information of a subject formed from the coordinate information of each joint”. The skeletal information is the drawn image.); and
a display unit configured to display the image-processed image and the calculation result in synchronization with each other ([0007]: “a display means for displaying the subject's skeletal information and skeletal information to be compared side by side, a setting reception means for receiving settings for the display format on the screen displayed by the display means”; [0009]: “This figure shows an example of a screen displayed on the display 212 of the information processing device 101 when extracting measurement results in the present invention. This figure shows an example of a screen displayed on the display 212 of the information processing device 101 after the measurement results have been extracted, according to the present invention … An example of a screen created by combining video footage captured and acquired by the motion information acquisition unit 151 with skeletal information”. The display includes side by side display of the skeletal information (the drawn image, which is made from the calculation result) and the measurement results and video from the information processing device, which is the image-processed image.), and
the motion state monitoring method comprising:
generating the calculation result representing the motion state based on the detection result ([0016]: “The motion information acquired by each sensor of the motion information acquisition unit 151 is transmitted to the motion information analysis unit 152, where data analysis is performed”; [0017]: “The motion information analysis unit 152 analyzes each data acquired by the motion information acquisition unit 151 and converts the subject's movements into coordinate information.”. The coordinate information is the calculation result representing the motion state.);
performing image processing on the image ([0009]: “This figure shows an example of a screen displayed on the display 212 of the information processing device 101 when the information processing device 101 starts taking images of the subject in step S302 of the present invention.”. The information processing device is the image processing unit that processes the photographed images.); and
displaying the image-processed image and the calculation result in synchronization with each other ([0007]: “a display means for displaying the subject's skeletal information and skeletal information to be compared side by side, a setting reception means for receiving settings for the display format on the screen displayed by the display means”; [0009]: “This figure shows an example of a screen displayed on the display 212 of the information processing device 101 when extracting measurement results in the present invention. This figure shows an example of a screen displayed on the display 212 of the information processing device 101 after the measurement results have been extracted, according to the present invention … An example of a screen created by combining video footage captured and acquired by the motion information acquisition unit 151 with skeletal information”. The display includes side by side display of the skeletal information (the drawn image, which is made from the calculation result) and the measurement results and video from the information processing device, which is the image-processed image.).
Regarding independent claim 13, Nozaki teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a motion state monitoring program for causing a computer included in a motion state monitoring system to monitor a motion state at a target part of a subject's body ([0193]: “As described above, it goes without saying that the object of the present invention can also be achieved by supplying a recording medium containing a program that realizes the functions of the embodiments described above to a system or device, and by having the computer (or CPU or MPU) of that system or device read and execute the program stored on
the recording medium”; Motion information acquisition part 151), the motion state monitoring system comprising:
an arithmetic processing unit configured to generate a calculation result representing the motion state based on a detection result of a sensor configured to detect the motion state (Motion information analysis unit 152; [0016]: “The motion information acquired by each sensor of the motion information acquisition unit 151 is transmitted to the motion information analysis unit 152, where data analysis is performed”; [0017]: “The motion information analysis unit 152 analyzes each data acquired by the motion information acquisition unit 151 and converts the subject's movements into coordinate information.”. The coordinate information is the calculation result representing the motion state.);
an image processing unit configured to perform image processing on at least one of a photographed image obtained by photographing the motion state ([0009]: “This figure shows an example of a screen displayed on the display 212 of the information processing device 101 when the information processing device 101 starts taking images of the subject in step S302 of the present invention.”. The information processing device is the image processing unit that processes the photographed images.) and a drawn image obtained by drawing the motion state ([0009]: “This figure shows an example of skeletal information of a subject formed from the coordinate information of each joint”. The skeletal information is the drawn image.); and
a display unit configured to display the image-processed image and the calculation result in synchronization with each other ([0007]: “a display means for displaying the subject's skeletal information and skeletal information to be compared side by side, a setting reception means for receiving settings for the display format on the screen displayed by the display means”; [0009]: “This figure shows an example of a screen displayed on the display 212 of the information processing device 101 when extracting measurement results in the present invention. This figure shows an example of a screen displayed on the display 212 of the information processing device 101 after the measurement results have been extracted, according to the present invention … An example of a screen created by combining video footage captured and acquired by the motion information acquisition unit 151 with skeletal information”. The display includes side by side display of the skeletal information (the drawn image, which is made from the calculation result) and the measurement results and video from the information processing device, which is the image-processed image.), and
the motion state monitoring program being configured to cause the computer to perform:
generating the calculation result representing the motion state based on the detection result; ([0016]: “The motion information acquired by each sensor of the motion information acquisition unit 151 is transmitted to the motion information analysis unit 152, where data analysis is performed”; [0017]: “The motion information analysis unit 152 analyzes each data acquired by the motion information acquisition unit 151 and converts the subject's movements into coordinate information.”. The coordinate information is the calculation result representing the motion state.)
performing image processing on the image (shows an example of a screen displayed on the display 212 of the information processing device 101 when the information processing device 101 starts taking images of the subject in step S302 of the present invention.”. The information processing device is the image processing unit that processes the photographed images.); and
displaying the image-processed image and the calculation result in synchronization with each other ([0007]: “a display means for displaying the subject's skeletal information and skeletal information to be compared side by side, a setting reception means for receiving settings for the display format on the screen displayed by the display means”; [0009]: “This figure shows an example of a screen displayed on the display 212 of the information processing device 101 when extracting measurement results in the present invention. This figure shows an example of a screen displayed on the display 212 of the information processing device 101 after the measurement results have been extracted, according to the present invention … An example of a screen created by combining video footage captured and acquired by the motion information acquisition unit 151 with skeletal information”. The display includes side by side display of the skeletal information (the drawn image, which is made from the calculation result) and the measurement results and video from the information processing device, which is the image-processed image.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 3-6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nozaki as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Gossling (US 10561346).
Regarding claim 3, Nozaki teaches the motion state monitoring system according to claim 2.
However, Nozaki does not teach wherein the image processing unit generates a locus of the target part in the drawn image of the 3D model or the avatar, and the display unit displays the drawn image including the generated locus.
Gossling discloses a device for mapping the trajectory of a part of the anatomy of the human body. Specifically, Gossling teaches wherein the image processing unit generates a locus of the target part in the drawn image of the 3D model or the avatar, and the display unit displays the drawn image including the generated locus (Fig. 5; Column 10, lines 20-30: “the two dimensional coordinate data is transformed to three dimensional coordinate data defined in a three dimensional coordinate space, and the sensor signals and/or the transformed three dimensional coordinate data mapped to an image space, so that a three dimensional representation of an avatar 50 may be displayed, for example displaying the avatar 50 moving its part of the anatomy, and thus displaying the trajectory of the part of the anatomy on the avatar 50. For example the trajectory of the part of the anatomy may be displayed in real time with the movements of the sensor 2”. The display of the trajectory of the part of the anatomy is the locus.). Nozaki and Gossling are analogous art as they are both related to motion monitoring systems.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the generation of a locus from Gossling into the system from Nozaki as it allows the system to identify and highlight a specific body part of interest, which can allow for the user to more easily see whatever location they are trying to track.
Regarding claim 4, Nozaki teaches the motion state monitoring system according to claim 2.
However, Nozaki does not teach wherein the image processing unit generates a locus of the target part in the photographed image, and the display unit displays the photographed image including the generated locus.
Gossling teaches wherein the image processing unit generates a locus of the target part in the photographed image, and the display unit displays the photographed image including the generated locus (Fig. 5; Column 10, lines 20-30: “the two dimensional coordinate data is transformed to three dimensional coordinate data defined in a three dimensional coordinate space, and the sensor signals and/or the transformed three dimensional coordinate data mapped to an image space, so that a three dimensional representation of an avatar 50 may be displayed, for example displaying the avatar 50 moving its part of the anatomy, and thus displaying the trajectory of the part of the anatomy on the avatar 50. For example the trajectory of the part of the anatomy may be displayed in real time with the movements of the sensor 2”. The display of the trajectory of the part of the anatomy is the locus, which can also be displayed on a photographed image.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the generation of a locus from Gossling into the system from Nozaki as it allows the system to identify and highlight a specific body part of interest, which can allow for the user to more easily see whatever location they are trying to track.
Regarding claim 5, Nozaki teaches the motion state monitoring system according to claim 2.
However, Nozaki does not teach wherein the image processing unit generates a locus of the target part in the drawn image of the 3D model or the avatar, obtained by drawing the motion state shown in the photographed image, and the display unit displays the drawn image including the generated locus.
Gossling teaches wherein the image processing unit generates a locus of the target part in the drawn image of the 3D model or the avatar, obtained by drawing the motion state shown in the photographed image, and the display unit displays the drawn image including the generated locus (Fig. 5; Column 10, lines 20-30: “the two dimensional coordinate data is transformed to three dimensional coordinate data defined in a three dimensional coordinate space, and the sensor signals and/or the transformed three dimensional coordinate data mapped to an image space, so that a three dimensional representation of an avatar 50 may be displayed, for example displaying the avatar 50 moving its part of the anatomy, and thus displaying the trajectory of the part of the anatomy on the avatar 50. For example the trajectory of the part of the anatomy may be displayed in real time with the movements of the sensor 2”. The display of the trajectory of the part of the anatomy is the locus. Since the drawn image is made from information collected at the same time as the photographed image, the motion state in the drawn image is the same as the motion state in the photographed image.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the generation of a locus from Gossling into the system from Nozaki as it allows the system to identify and highlight a specific body part of interest, which can allow for the user to more easily see whatever location they are trying to track.
Regarding claim 6, Nozaki teaches the motion state monitoring system according to claim 2.
However, Nozaki does not teach wherein the image processing unit generates a locus of the target part in the drawn image of the 3D model or the avatar, obtained by drawing the motion state, the motion state being generated in advance and used as a reference, and the display unit displays the drawn image including the generated locus.
Gossling teaches wherein the image processing unit generates a locus of the target part in the drawn image of the 3D model or the avatar, obtained by drawing the motion state, the motion state being generated in advance and used as a reference, and the display unit displays the drawn image including the generated locus (Fig. 5; Column 10, lines 20-30: “the two dimensional coordinate data is transformed to three dimensional coordinate data defined in a three dimensional coordinate space, and the sensor signals and/or the transformed three dimensional coordinate data mapped to an image space, so that a three dimensional representation of an avatar 50 may be displayed, for example displaying the avatar 50 moving its part of the anatomy, and thus displaying the trajectory of the part of the anatomy on the avatar 50. For example the trajectory of the part of the anatomy may be displayed in real time with the movements of the sensor 2”; Column 6, lines 4-12: “the sensor 2 is operable to transmit at a frequency of at least 10 Hz, for example at least 50 Hz, for example at least 100 Hz with latency (delay) for the data (for example the first sensor signals comprising the three dimensional position information) being at least 8 ms, for example at most 40 ms, i.e. about 1/40th of a second. This enables the controller 1 to focus on displaying actual figures in real time, for live feedback, as well as saving the results to a data storage for future reference and comparison”. The display of the trajectory of the part of the anatomy is the locus. Additionally, the motion state can be monitored in real time or be saved and used for future reference, therefore can be generated in advance and used as a reference.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the generation of a locus from Gossling into the system from Nozaki as it allows the system to identify and highlight a specific body part of interest, which can allow for the user to more easily see whatever location they are trying to track.
Regarding claim 10, Nozaki teaches the motion state monitoring system according to claim 1, wherein the system determines a walking speed ([0087]: “the information processing device 101 determines the subject's walking speed”).
However, Nozaki does not teach wherein the display unit further displays at least one of vital data and a walking speed.
Gossling teaches wherein the display unit further displays at least one of vital data and a walking speed (Column 10, lines 43-51: “The controller 1 may be configured to store this association between the fourth sensor signals, for example at least one selected from the list of: speed, acceleration and power of a part of the anatomy of the human or animal body and the two dimensional coordinate data. The controller 1 may be configured to map this information to an image space, for example so that the information is displayed as an overlay at the display location on a display of the trajectory of the part of the anatomy.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the display unit displaying the walking speed from Gossling into the system from Nozaki as it allows the user to see what the walking speed is, which keeps them more informed in a simple and easy visual way.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nozaki as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Gossling and Matsumura (WO 2016084285). Citations to WO 2016084285 will refer to the English Machine Translation that accompanies this Office Action.
Regarding claim 7, Nozaki teaches the motion state monitoring system according to claim 2.
However, Nozaki does not teach wherein the image processing unit: generates a first locus of the target part in the drawn image of the 3D model or the avatar, obtained by drawing the motion state shown in the photographed image; generates a second locus of the target part in the drawn image of the 3D model or the avatar, obtained by drawing the motion state, the motion state being generated in advance as the reference; and generates a Lissajous figure in which the first and second loci are combined with each other, and the display unit displays the generated Lissajous figure.
Gossling teaches wherein the image processing unit: generates a first locus of the target part in the drawn image of the 3D model or the avatar, obtained by drawing the motion state shown in the photographed image (Fig. 5; Column 10, lines 20-30: “the two dimensional coordinate data is transformed to three dimensional coordinate data defined in a three dimensional coordinate space, and the sensor signals and/or the transformed three dimensional coordinate data mapped to an image space, so that a three dimensional representation of an avatar 50 may be displayed, for example displaying the avatar 50 moving its part of the anatomy, and thus displaying the trajectory of the part of the anatomy on the avatar 50. For example the trajectory of the part of the anatomy may be displayed in real time with the movements of the sensor 2”. The display of the trajectory of the part of the anatomy is the locus. Since the drawn image is made from information collected at the same time as the photographed image, the motion state in the drawn image is the same as the motion state in the photographed image.); generates a second locus of the target part in the drawn image of the 3D model or the avatar, obtained by drawing the motion state, the motion state being generated in advance as the reference (Fig. 5; Column 10, lines 20-30: “the two dimensional coordinate data is transformed to three dimensional coordinate data defined in a three dimensional coordinate space, and the sensor signals and/or the transformed three dimensional coordinate data mapped to an image space, so that a three dimensional representation of an avatar 50 may be displayed, for example displaying the avatar 50 moving its part of the anatomy, and thus displaying the trajectory of the part of the anatomy on the avatar 50. For example the trajectory of the part of the anatomy may be displayed in real time with the movements of the sensor 2”; Column 6, lines 4-12: “the sensor 2 is operable to transmit at a frequency of at least 10 Hz, for example at least 50 Hz, for example at least 100 Hz with latency (delay) for the data (for example the first sensor signals comprising the three dimensional position information) being at least 8 ms, for example at most 40 ms, i.e. about 1/40th of a second. This enables the controller 1 to focus on displaying actual figures in real time, for live feedback, as well as saving the results to a data storage for future reference and comparison”. The display of the trajectory of the part of the anatomy is the locus. Additionally, the motion state can be monitored in real time or be saved and used for future reference, therefore can be generated in advance and used as a reference. Since the information can be used for comparison, there can be multiple locus generated for each time point.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the generation of loci from Gossling into the system from Nozaki as it allows the system to identify and highlight a specific body part of interest, which can allow for the user to more easily see whatever location they are trying to track.
However, the Nozaki/Gossling combination does not teach generating a Lissajous figure in which the first and second loci are combined with each other, and the display unit displays the generated Lissajous figure.
Matsumura discloses a gait analysis system. Specifically, Matsumura teaches generating a Lissajous figure in which the first and second loci are combined with each other, and the display unit displays the generated Lissajous figure (Page 23: “As shown in Figure 2, the data creation unit 31 acquires time-series data of the trajectory of the change in position during the walking motion of the person being measured 100, based on the physical information acquired by the sensor unit 1. In this embodiment, the data creation unit 31 calculates time-series data of the trajectory of the change in position by integrating twice the acceleration data for each of the three axes transmitted from the three-axis acceleration sensor. The data creation unit 31 creates Lissajous curve data in three planes based on time-series data of the trajectory of position changes. Specifically, Lissajous curve data is created by projecting time-series data of the trajectory of three-dimensional position changes onto three two-dimensional planes (x-y plane, y-z plane, and z-x plane).”. The time series data of the trajectory of change in position is made from the two loci.). Nozaki, Gossling, and Matsumura are analogous art as they are all related to motion monitoring systems.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the Lissajous figure from Matsumura into the Nozaki/Gossling combination as it allows the system to display the trajectory of the target part in a single, clear image, which allows the user to easily analyze the change in location between the different times.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nozaki as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Hao (US 20200268251).
Regarding claim 8, Nozaki teaches the motion state monitoring system according to claim 2.
However, Nozaki does not teach wherein the display unit displays the drawn image of the 3D model or the avatar in an enlarged or reduced manner.
Hao teaches a system and method for patient positioning. Specifically, Hao teaches wherein the display unit displays the image of the 3D model or the avatar in an enlarged or reduced manner ([0164]: “a system operator may customize the displaying area, such as having the image displayed in full screen, or enlarged to display in extended double screens, or reduced to display in a half-screen window”). Nozaki and Hao are analogous art as they are both related to systems that change the display of images.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the image size from Hao as Nozaki is silent on the size of the displayed images, and Hao discloses sizing of images in an analogous device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIN K MCCORMACK whose telephone number is (703)756-1886. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5.
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, Jason Sims can be reached at 5712727540. 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.
/E.K.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/MATTHEW KREMER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights