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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim 13 is withdrawn.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 07/22/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and have been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of species II encompassing claims 1-12, and 14-20 in the reply filed on 07/27/2026 is acknowledged.
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: “calculation unit” in claims 1, 3-8, 10-12, 14, 16-17 and 20.
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.
A review of the specification, shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre- AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
calculation unit - server device 2 includes an information processing apparatus such as a computer device, and is provided, by software, for example, with functions as a calculation unit 21, paragraphs 29-30.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
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 § 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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 19 is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim 19 does not fall within at least one of the four categories (i.e., computer program per se) of patent eligible subject matter because claim 19 is directed to the concept of a computer program that causes the information processing apparatus to perform a method. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more because a program in the claim detached from any medium is an idea without physical embodiment. Viewed as a whole, a program does not provide meaningful limitations to transform the program into a patent eligible application. Therefore, the claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. Examiner suggests amending the claim to recite “non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions” for executing the steps of claim 19 to overcome the 101 rejection.
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-12 and 14-20 are directed toward an apparatus, method, a computer program product, and system, which falls within one of the four statutory categories of invention but do not meet the three-prong test for patentability.
Regarding independent claim 1, under step 1, the claim is directed to an apparatus, which is one of the categories of eligible inventions.
Under step 2A Prong 1, the claim recites an apparatus with steps reciting optimizing human activity, specifically, acquiring images is just a data gathering step with steps of comparing between human motion and another predefined motion based on skeleton (x-ray) data of captured moving images, which is an extra solution activity of generating result of said comparison is just an abstract idea, comprising:
“An information processing apparatus comprising: a calculation unit that performs processing of generating a comparison image between a first motion that is one sample of a specific motion that is a human action and a second motion that is another sample of the specific motion by using skeleton capture data of the first motion and skeleton capture data of the second motion”.
It is further noted that steps of acquiring image data are just data gathering or an extra solution activity in the field of endeavor. And steps of comparing between human motion and another predefined motion based on x-ray data of captured moving images, which is an extra solution activity of generating result of said comparison is just an abstract idea and can all be considered mental processes and can be fully accomplished mentally by manipulating the acquired image while having a pen and paper.
Under step 2A Prong 2, the claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. There are no additional elements recited such as use of a particular machine or components other than using generic computer components such as “information processing apparatus”.
Moreover, all of the limitations in the recited method can be accomplished without reliance on any specific machine and could be accomplished by human minds and interactions between humans as they are not specifically tailored for execution in any specific machine other than using generic computer components. The claim as a whole does not present a practical application of the abstract idea.
Under Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea judicial exception because, as discussed in step 2A, there is merely a recitation of using information processing apparatus performing the process, which are all well-understood routine practices and are purely generic. This finding is consistent with the level of detail of the specification and the well-understood and conventional nature of these elements is broadly covered under court decisions (i) and (iv) from MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) related to receiving and retrieving information in a generic computer environment. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 2, it merely adds to claim 1 and further details “wherein the specific motion is a pitching motion of baseball or softball”. This again only provides further extra solution activity of defining and analyzing specific motion that could be performed unaided by a human, recited as performed by a generic computing device, and thus, as in the claim do not constitute practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 3, it merely adds to claim 1 and further details “wherein the comparison image generated by the calculation unit includes clip images that are moving images obtained by capturing the first motion and the second motion”. This again only provides further extra solution activity of analyzing specific motion in images which were captured/obtained, that could be performed unaided by a human, recited as performed by a generic computing device, and thus, as in the claim do not constitute practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 4, it merely adds to claim 1 and further details “wherein the comparison image generated by the calculation unit includes a skeleton comparison image that presents a skeleton image indicating a skeleton at each time point of the first motion and a skeleton image indicating a skeleton at each time point of the second motion in a comparable manner”. This again only provides a mental process of comparing two captured moving x-ray images at each time point executed on a generic device, that could be performed unaided by a human, recited as performed by a generic computing device, and thus, as in the claim do not constitute practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 5, it merely adds to claim 4 and further details “wherein the calculation unit generates the skeleton comparison image as an image in which a skeleton image of the first motion and a skeleton image of the second motion are overlaid and displayed”. This again only provides a mental process superimposing and displaying of the two images as compared by executing on a generic device, that could be performed unaided by a human, recited as performed by a generic computing device, and thus, as in the claim do not constitute practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 6, it merely adds to claim 4 and further details “wherein the calculation unit performs processing of presenting different points between a skeleton image of the first motion and a skeleton image of the second motion in the skeleton comparison image”. This again only provides human activity of comparing and analyzing of the two moving x-ray images at different time points which is a mental process executed on a generic device, that could be performed unaided by a human, recited as performed by a generic computing device, and thus, as in the claim do not constitute practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 7, it merely adds to claim 1 and further details “wherein the comparison image generated by the calculation unit includes an enlarged skeleton image that presents a skeleton image obtained by enlarging a skeleton of a hand at each time point of the first motion and a skeleton image obtained by enlarging a skeleton of a hand at each time point of the second motion in a comparable manner”. This again only provides human activity of comparing the enlarged/zoomed in versions of the two images which is a mental process executed on a generic device, that could be performed unaided by a human, recited as performed by a generic computing device, and thus, as in the claim do not constitute practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 8, it merely adds to claim 1 and further details “wherein the comparison image generated by the calculation unit includes: clip images that are moving images obtained by capturing the first motion and the second motion; and a skeleton comparison image that is an image that presents a skeleton image indicating a skeleton at each time point of the first motion and a skeleton image indicating a skeleton at each time point of the second motion in a comparable manner, and the clip images and the skeleton comparison image are images synchronously displayed”. This again only provides a mental process of comparing two captured moving x-ray images at each time point executed on a generic device with synchronization display processing’s is a mental process executed on a generic device that could be performed unaided by a human, recited as performed by a generic computing device, and thus, as in the claim do not constitute practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 9, it merely adds to claim 8 and further details “wherein the specific motion is a pitching motion of baseball or softball, and the clip images and the skeleton comparison image are images synchronously displayed with release timings of pitching motions matched”. This again only provides a mental process of comparing two captured moving x-ray images at each time point executed on a generic device with synchronization display processing’s which is a mental process performed on a generic device, that could be performed unaided by a human, recited as performed by a generic computing device, and thus, as in the claim do not constitute practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 10, it merely adds to claim 1 and further details “wherein the comparison image generated by the calculation unit includes time-series information that presents a movement of a joint at each time point of the first motion and a movement of a joint at each time point of the second motion in a comparable manner”. This again only provides a mental process of comparing two captured moving x-ray images at each time point executed on a generic device with tracking of exact body part movement which is a mental process performed on a generic device, that could be performed unaided by a human, recited as performed by a generic computing device, and thus, as in the claim do not constitute practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 11, it merely adds to claim 10 and further details “wherein the comparison image generated by the calculation unit includes clip images that are moving images obtained by capturing the first motion and the second motion, and playback points of the clip images are indicated on a time axis in the time-series information”. This again only provides a mental process of comparing two captured moving x-ray images at each time point executed on a generic device with tracking and displaying of exact body part movements which is a mental process performed on a generic device, that could be performed unaided by a human, recited as performed by a generic computing device, and thus, as in the claim do not constitute practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 12, it merely adds to claim 1 and further details “wherein the specific motion is a pitching motion of baseball or softball, and the calculation unit performs processing of generating a user interface image for selection of the first motion and the second motion by using score data of a game of baseball or softball”. This again only provides further extra solution activity of defining/selecting and analyzing specific motion such as baseball pitching motion that could be performed unaided by a human, recited as performed by a generic computing device, and thus, as in the claim do not constitute practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 14, it merely adds to claim 1 and further details “wherein each of a plurality of focused points related to a pitching motion is able to be selected as focused variables, and the calculation unit calculates degree of similarity or difference between a pitching motion selected as the first motion and other pitching motions by using focused variables selected by a user operation”. This again only provides further extra solution activity of executing process using generic computer components including a generic computer instructions performed on a generic device, that could be performed unaided by a human, recited as performed by a generic computing device, and thus, as in the claim do not constitute practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 15, it merely adds to claim 14 and further details “wherein the focused variables include at least one of an item related to a game situation or an item related to a pitch”. This again only provides further extra solution activity of defining/selecting and analyzing specific motion such as baseball pitching motion that could be performed unaided by a human, recited as performed by a generic computing device, and thus, as in the claim do not constitute practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 16, it merely adds to claim 14 and further details “wherein in processing of calculating degree of similarity between a pitching motion selected as the first motion and other pitching motions, for the N focused variables selected, the calculation unit performs processing of calculating N similarities as similarities each by using (N - 1) focused variables excluding one focused variable, where N is a natural number of 2 or more”. This again only provides further extra solution activity of executing process using generic computer components including a generic computer instructions performed on a generic device, that could be performed unaided by a human, recited as performed by a generic computing device, and thus, as in the claim do not constitute practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 17, it merely adds to claim 16 and further details “wherein the calculation unit rearranges the N similarities in descending order to calculate degree of difference between the focused variables each excluded for corresponding one of the N similarities.” This again only provides further extra solution activity of executing process using generic computer components including a generic computer instructions performed on a generic device, that could be performed unaided by a human, recited as performed by a generic computing device, and thus, as in the claim do not constitute practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding independent claim 18, under step 1, the claim is directed to a method, which is one of the categories of eligible inventions.
Under step 2A Prong 1, the claim recites steps reciting optimizing human activity, specifically, acquiring images is just a data gathering step with steps of comparing between human motion and another predefined motion based on skeleton (x-ray) data of captured moving images, which is an extra solution activity of generating result of said comparison is just an abstract idea, comprising:
“An information processing method comprising: performing, by an information processing apparatus, processing of generating a comparison image between a first motion that is one sample of a specific motion that is a human action and a second motion that is another sample of the specific motion by using skeleton capture data of the first motion and skeleton capture data of the second motion”.
It is further noted that steps of acquiring image data are just data gathering or an extra solution activity in the field of endeavor. And steps of comparing between human motion and another predefined motion based on x-ray data of captured moving images, which is an extra solution activity of generating result of said comparison is just an abstract idea and can all be considered mental processes and can be fully accomplished mentally by manipulating the acquired image while having a pen and paper.
Under step 2A Prong 2, the claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. There are no additional elements recited such as use of a particular machine or components other than using generic computer components such as information processing apparatus performing the method.
Moreover, all of the limitations in the recited method can be accomplished without reliance on any specific machine and could be accomplished by human minds and interactions between humans as they are not specifically tailored for execution in any specific machine other than using generic computer components. The claim as a whole does not present a practical application of the abstract idea.
Under Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea judicial exception because, as discussed in step 2A, there is merely a recitation of using information processing performing the process, which are all well-understood routine practices and are purely generic. This finding is consistent with the level of detail of the specification and the well-understood and conventional nature of these elements is broadly covered under court decisions (i) and (iv) from MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) related to receiving and retrieving information in a generic computer environment. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding independent claim 19, under step 1, the claim is directed to a program, which is one of the categories of eligible inventions.
Under step 2A Prong 1, the claim recites steps reciting optimizing human activity, specifically, acquiring images is just a data gathering step with steps of comparing between human motion and another predefined motion based on skeleton (x-ray) data of captured moving images, which is an extra solution activity of generating result of said comparison is just an abstract idea, comprising:
“A program causing: an information processing apparatus to perform processing of generating a comparison image between a first motion that is one sample of a specific motion that is a human action and a second motion that is another sample of the specific motion by using skeleton capture data of the first motion and skeleton capture data of the second motion.”.
It is further noted that steps of acquiring image data are just data gathering or an extra solution activity in the field of endeavor. And steps of comparing between human motion and another predefined motion based on x-ray data of captured moving images, which is an extra solution activity of generating result of said comparison is just an abstract idea and can all be considered mental processes and can be fully accomplished mentally by manipulating the acquired image while having a pen and paper.
Under step 2A Prong 2, the claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. There are no additional elements recited such as use of a particular machine or components other than using generic computer components such as “information processing apparatus”.
Moreover, all of the limitations in the recited method can be accomplished without reliance on any specific machine and could be accomplished by human minds and interactions between humans as they are not specifically tailored for execution in any specific machine other than using generic computer components. The claim as a whole does not present a practical application of the abstract idea.
Under Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea judicial exception because, as discussed in step 2A, there is merely a recitation of using information processing apparatus performing the process, which are all well-understood routine practices and are purely generic. This finding is consistent with the level of detail of the specification and the well-understood and conventional nature of these elements is broadly covered under court decisions (i) and (iv) from MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) related to receiving and retrieving information in a generic computer environment. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding independent claim 20, under step 1, the claim is directed to a system which is one of the categories of eligible inventions.
Under step 2A Prong 1, the claim recites a system with steps reciting optimizing human activity, specifically, acquiring images is just a data gathering step with steps of comparing between human motion and another predefined motion based on skeleton (x-ray) data of captured moving images, which is an extra solution activity of generating result of said comparison is just an abstract idea, comprising:
“An information analysis system comprising: an imaging device; and an information processing apparatus including a calculation unit that performs processing of generating a comparison image between a first motion that is one sample of a specific motion that is a human action and a second motion that is another sample of the specific motion by using skeleton capture data of the first motion and skeleton capture data of the second motion”.
It is further noted that steps of acquiring image data are just data gathering or an extra solution activity in the field of endeavor. And steps of comparing between human motion and another predefined motion based on x-ray data of captured moving images, which is an extra solution activity of generating result of said comparison is just an abstract idea and can all be considered mental processes and can be fully accomplished mentally by manipulating the acquired image while having a pen and paper.
Under step 2A Prong 2, the claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. There are no additional elements recited such as use of a particular machine or components other than using generic computer components such as “information processing apparatus” and “imaging device”.
Moreover, all of the limitations in the recited method can be accomplished without reliance on any specific machine and could be accomplished by human minds and interactions between humans as they are not specifically tailored for execution in any specific machine other than using generic computer components. The claim as a whole does not present a practical application of the abstract idea.
Under Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea judicial exception because, as discussed in step 2A, there is merely a recitation of using information processing apparatus with imaging device for performing the process, which are all well-understood routine practices and are purely generic. This finding is consistent with the level of detail of the specification and the well-understood and conventional nature of these elements is broadly covered under court decisions (i) and (iv) from MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) related to receiving and retrieving information in a generic computer environment. The claim is not patent eligible.
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 1-6, 8, 10-11 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Iwao, US 2020/0005670.
Regarding claim 1, Iwao discloses an information processing apparatus (information processing apparatus 100, fig. 1, paragraph 21) comprising:
a calculation unit (CPU 101, paragraph 21) that performs processing of generating a comparison image between a first motion that is one sample of a specific motion that is a human action (paragraphs 5, 25, golf swing action of a learner/person (i.e., first motion)) and a second motion (golf swing motion of model/another person (i.e. second motion), paragraphs 5, 25) that is another sample of the specific motion (information processing apparatus 100 displays an image representing motion of the model by superimposing the image representing motion of the model on the image of the learner displayed in the image display area 301 such that information processing apparatus 100 displays information relating to the motion of the learner (i.e., first motion) and the information relating to the motion of the model (i.e., second motion) in the analyzed data display area 302 (i.e., comparison image/data is displayed) so that the information relating to the motion of the learner can be compared with the information relating to the motion of the model, paragraphs 30-31),
by using skeleton capture data of the first motion and skeleton capture data of the second motion (information processing apparatus 100 can display an image representing shape data and skeleton data (bone structure of the object) about the model by applying motion information on the captured images of model to the skeleton data about the learner such that information processing apparatus 100 estimates 3D shape data and skeleton data of the learner based on the captured images of learner, and the image of the learner based on the estimated result is displayed in the image display area 301, paragraphs 29-30).
Regarding claim 2, Iwao further discloses wherein the specific motion is a pitching motion of baseball or softball (“For example, in a case where motion of a wrist of a baseball pitcher is compared, positioning can be performed on a position of a joint of the wrist”, paragraph 56).
Regarding claim 3, Iwao further discloses wherein the comparison image generated by the calculation unit includes clip images that are moving images obtained by capturing the first motion and the second motion (moving images of learner and model are captured, paragraphs 28-29, wherein, information processing apparatus 100 displays information relating to the motion of the learner and the information relating to the motion of the model so that the information relating to the motion of the learner can be compared with the information relating to the motion of the model by comparing change of an angle of a specific joint in each object with time, and an inflection point in the change of the angle such that automatically selecting a joint of which the motion is largely different between the learner and the model by analyzing sequence of moving images, paragraph 31 and “data about the model that is to be compared with the operation data about the learner…the information representing the motion of the object such as the model and the learner is represented as information representing motion of the skeleton including a plurality of joints and connection parts thereof, namely, as motion information representing the motion of the plurality of joints of the object”, paragraph 39).
Regarding claim 4, Iwao further discloses wherein the comparison image generated by the calculation unit includes a skeleton comparison image that presents a skeleton image indicating a skeleton at each time point of the first motion and a skeleton image indicating a skeleton at each time point of the second motion in a comparable manner (information processing apparatus 100 displays an image representing motion of the model by superimposing the image representing motion of the model on the image of the learner, wherein, the image is displayed representing a result obtained by applying motion information on the model to the skeleton data about the learner such that the information relating to the motion of the learner can be compared with the information relating to the motion of the model. The contents displayed here include change of an angle of a specific joint in each object with time, moreover, information processing apparatus 100 displays an image corresponding to a specific time point when motion difference between the learner and the model is large by comparing skeletal images for both learner and the model at each time point such as “information representing the motion of the object such as the model and the learner is represented as information representing motion of the skeleton including a plurality of joints and connection parts thereof, namely, as motion information representing the motion of the plurality of joints of the object” which are compared so that synchronization processing is performed based on inflection points in the skeleton motion, paragraphs 30-31, 33, 39, 57).
Regarding claim 5, Iwao further discloses wherein the calculation unit generates the skeleton comparison image as an image in which a skeleton image of the first motion and a skeleton image of the second motion are overlaid and displayed (information processing apparatus 100 displays an image representing motion of the model by superimposing the image representing motion of the model on the image of the learner, wherein, the image is displayed representing a result obtained by applying motion information on the model to the skeleton data about the learner such that the information relating to the motion of the learner can be compared with the information relating to the motion of the model, paragraphs 30-31, 39, 70).
Regarding claim 6, Iwao further discloses wherein the calculation unit performs processing of presenting different points between a skeleton image of the first motion and a skeleton image of the second motion in the skeleton comparison image (information processing apparatus 100 displays an image representing motion of the model by superimposing the image representing motion of the model on the image of the learner, wherein, the image is displayed representing a result obtained by applying motion information on the model to the skeleton data about the learner such that the information relating to the motion of the learner can be compared with the information relating to the motion of the model. The contents displayed here include change of an angle of a specific joint in each object with time, moreover, information processing apparatus 100 displays an image corresponding to a specific time point when motion difference between the learner and the model is large by comparing skeletal images for both learner and the model at each time point such as “information processing apparatus 100 can first display the image from the viewpoint at which the motion difference between the learner and the model is the greatest, and after the difference at the viewpoint is reduced to a certain degree via form correction, the information processing apparatus 100 can change the display image to an image at a viewpoint at which the motion difference is the second greatest. When the motion difference between the learner and the model is reduced to a certain degree or more at all of the viewpoints, the information processing apparatus 100 can display an image indicating that the motion difference has been reduced on the display unit”, paragraphs 30-31, 33, 68-70).
Regarding claim 8, Iwao further discloses wherein the comparison image generated by the calculation unit includes: clip images that are moving images obtained by capturing the first motion and the second motion (moving images of learner and model are captured, paragraphs 28-29, wherein, information processing apparatus 100 displays information relating to the motion of the learner and the information relating to the motion of the model so that the information relating to the motion of the learner can be compared with the information relating to the motion of the model by comparing change of an angle of a specific joint in each object with time, and an inflection point in the change of the angle such that automatically selecting a joint of which the motion is largely different between the learner and the model by analyzing sequence of moving images, paragraph 31 and paragraph 39, “data about the model that is to be compared with the operation data about the learner…the information representing the motion of the object such as the model and the learner is represented as information representing motion of the skeleton including a plurality of joints and connection parts thereof, namely, as motion information representing the motion of the plurality of joints of the object”);
and a skeleton comparison image that is an image that presents a skeleton image indicating a skeleton at each time point of the first motion and a skeleton image indicating a skeleton at each time point of the second motion in a comparable manner (information processing apparatus 100 displays an image representing motion of the model by superimposing the image representing motion of the model on the image of the learner, wherein, the image is displayed representing a result obtained by applying motion information on the model to the skeleton data about the learner such that the information relating to the motion of the learner can be compared with the information relating to the motion of the model. The contents displayed here include change of an angle of a specific joint in each object with time, moreover, information processing apparatus 100 displays an image corresponding to a specific time point when motion difference between the learner and the model is large by comparing skeletal images for both learner and the model at each time point such as “information representing the motion of the object such as the model and the learner is represented as information representing motion of the skeleton including a plurality of joints and connection parts thereof, namely, as motion information representing the motion of the plurality of joints of the object” which are compared so that synchronization processing is performed based on inflection points in the skeleton motion, paragraphs 30-31, 33, 39, 57),
and the clip images and the skeleton comparison image are images synchronously displayed (information processing apparatus 100 performs the positioning and the time synchronization on the skeleton data to facilitate comparison between the image representing the motion of the model and the image representing the motion of the learner, for instance, time synchronization unit 1007 performs the time synchronization between the motion of the model and the motion of the learner, and outputs the synchronized operation data so that a case where a moving image representing motion of golf swing by the model and a moving image representing motion of golf swing by the learner are displayed, the time synchronization processing is performed such that specific time points such as moments of impact in both images are synchronized with each other, paragraphs 55, 57).
Regarding claim 10, Iwao further discloses wherein the comparison image generated by the calculation unit includes time-series information that presents a movement of a joint at each time point of the first motion and a movement of a joint at each time point of the second motion in a comparable manner (information processing apparatus 100 displays an image representing motion of the model by superimposing the image representing motion of the model on the image of the learner, wherein, the image is displayed representing a result obtained by applying motion information on the model to the skeleton data about the learner such that the information relating to the motion of the learner can be compared with the information relating to the motion of the model. The contents displayed here include change of an angle of a specific joint in each object with time, moreover, information processing apparatus 100 displays an image corresponding to a specific time point when motion difference between the learner and the model is large by comparing skeletal images for both learner and the model at each time point such as “information representing the motion of the object such as the model and the learner is represented as information representing motion of the skeleton including a plurality of joints and connection parts thereof, namely, as motion information representing the motion of the plurality of joints of the object”, paragraphs 30-31, 33, 39).
Regarding claim 11, Iwao further discloses wherein the comparison image generated by the calculation unit includes clip images that are moving images obtained by capturing the first motion and the second motion (moving images of learner and model are captured, paragraphs 28-29, wherein, information processing apparatus 100 displays information relating to the motion of the learner and the information relating to the motion of the model so that the information relating to the motion of the learner can be compared with the information relating to the motion of the model by comparing change of an angle of a specific joint in each object with time, and an inflection point in the change of the angle such that automatically selecting a joint of which the motion is largely different between the learner and the model by analyzing sequence of moving images, paragraph 31 and paragraph 39, “data about the model that is to be compared with the operation data about the learner…the information representing the motion of the object such as the model and the learner is represented as information representing motion of the skeleton including a plurality of joints and connection parts thereof, namely, as motion information representing the motion of the plurality of joints of the object”), and playback points of the clip images are indicated on a time axis in the time-series information (“information processing apparatus 100 displays an image corresponding to a time point based on a position of the seek bar 311 in the image display area 301. A position corresponding to a specific time point when, for example, motion difference between the learner and the model is large can be displayed on the seek bar 311. For example, in FIG. 3, a circle on the seek bar 311 indicates a time when the motion difference between the learner and the model is large, specified by the information processing apparatus 100”, paragraph 33).
Regarding claim 18, it is a method version of claim 1 reciting similar features and thus is rejected on the same rationale as presented for claim 1.
Regarding claim 19, which recites a computer program version of claim 1, see rationale as applied above. Note that computer program for performing the steps is taught by Iwao at paragraph 75.
Regarding claim 20, Iwao discloses an information analysis system (analysis system 10, paragraph 20) comprising: an imaging device (plurality of imaging apparatuses (camera group) 109, paragraph 20); and an information processing apparatus (information processing apparatus 100, paragraph 20). Rest of the claim recites similar features as claim 1, and thus is rejected on the same rationale as presented for 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 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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwao, US 2020/0005670 in view of Onda et al., US 2019/0347779.
Regarding claim 7, Iwao further discloses wherein the comparison image generated by the calculation unit includes an skeleton image that presents a skeleton image obtained by a skeleton of a hand at each time point of the first motion and a skeleton image obtained by a skeleton of a hand at each time point of the second motion in a comparable manner (“For example, in a case where motion of a wrist of a baseball pitcher is compared, positioning can be performed on a position of a joint of the wrist”, paragraph 56 and paragraphs 29-31, 39 discussing displaying and comparing superimposed set of skeletal moving images of learner and the model).
Iwao fails to explicitly teach an enlarged skeleton image that presents a skeleton image obtained by enlarging a skeleton of a hand for analysis.
Onda teaches an enlarged skeleton image that presents a skeleton image obtained by enlarging a skeleton of a hand for analysis and a skeleton image obtained by enlarging a skeleton of a hand (capturing close-up moving images of hands of the first and second operators and generating a skeleton model including close up parts of hands such as thumb and wrists for analyzing motions of a subject, paragraphs 78, 109-110).
Iwao and Onda are combinable because they both are in the same field of endeavor dealing with image analysis of skeleton moving images.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Iwao with the teachings of Onda for the benefit of providing an operation analysis apparatus, and an operation analysis system with which operations of a person to be analyzed can be analyzed with high accuracy as taught by Onda at paragraph 8.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwao, US 2020/0005670 in view of Takizawa, JP 2012-120579.
Regarding claim 9, Iwao further discloses wherein the specific motion is a pitching motion of baseball or softball (“For example, in a case where motion of a wrist of a baseball pitcher is compared, positioning can be performed on a position of a joint of the wrist”, paragraph 56), and the clip images and the skeleton comparison image are images synchronously displayed (information processing apparatus 100 performs the positioning and the time synchronization on the skeleton data to facilitate comparison between the image representing the motion of the model and the image representing the motion of the learner, for instance, time synchronization unit 1007 performs the time synchronization between the motion of the model and the motion of the learner, and outputs the synchronized operation data so that a case where a moving image representing motion of golf swing by the model and a moving image representing motion of golf swing by the learner are displayed, the time synchronization processing is performed such that specific time points such as moments of impact in both images are synchronized with each other, paragraphs 55, 57, 60).
Iwao fails to explicitly teach images displayed with release timings of pitching motions matched.
Takizawa teaches wherein the specific motion is a pitching motion of baseball or softball, and images displayed with release timings of pitching motions matched (baseball pitching form is analyzed and the release timing (the time when the subject 2 stops moving before starting to pitch and the rear arm starts to move backward is the starting point of the exercise) at which the ball is released such as time when the ball 3 is separated from the fingertip of the subject's 2 dominant arm is used as normalized time point which corresponds to each of the plurality of divided motions to be made equal between the trajectory data of the subject model and the trajectory data of the reference model for comparing forms and trajectories because the movement node time is the same for the trajectory data of the subject, paragraphs 73, 95).
Iwao is combinable with Takizawa because they both are in the same field of endeavor dealing with image analysis of motions in moving images.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Iwao with the teachings of Takizawa for the benefit of being able to quantitatively analyze the difference between the exercise form and the exercise speed of the subject and the reference model as taught by Takizawa at paragraph 10.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwao, US 2020/0005670 in view of Ikeda, JP 2015-154890.
Regarding claim 12, Iwao further discloses wherein the specific motion is a pitching motion of baseball or softball (“For example, in a case where motion of a wrist of a baseball pitcher is compared, positioning can be performed on a position of a joint of the wrist”, paragraph 56) and the calculation unit performs processing of generating a user interface image for displaying superimposed comparison image of motions between learner and the model for the determination of comparing baseball pitching motions (as shown in figs. 3 and 5 and paragraphs 30-31, 39).
Iwao fails to explicitly teach generating a user interface image for selection of first motion and second motion by using score data of a game.
Ikeda teaches generating a user interface image for selection of first motion and second motion by using score data of a game of baseball or softball (comparing pitching forms under various conditions such as good times (good score data of game), bad times (bad score data of game) and based on that pitching form video is selected, narrowed down by score condition such that for making it possible to compare different pitching forms such as first form with first motion and second form with second motion before and after correction of pitching forms, paragraphs 98-100, 135, 172).
Iwao is combinable with Ikeda because they both are in the same field of endeavor dealing with image analysis of motions in moving images.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Iwao with the teachings of Ikeda for the benefit of providing a pitching analysis support system capable of quickly analyzing pitching of a pitcher by using a battle video of pitchers and batter taken from different first to nth directions in a baseball or softball game as taught by Ikeda at paragraph 5.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwao, US 2020/0005670 in view of Iwamoto et al., JP 2018-180894.
Regarding claim 14, Iwao further discloses wherein each of a plurality of focused points related to a pitching motion is able to be selected as focused variables (motion information representing the motion of the plurality of joints of the object, wherein angle information on the joint to be displayed can be selected based on the user operation, or the information processing apparatus can automatically select a joint of which the motion is largely different between the learner and the model, paragraphs 31, 39, 29), and the calculation unit calculates difference between a pitching motion selected as the first motion and other pitching motions by using focused variables selected by a user operation (motion difference between the learner and the model is the largest is displayed so that the learner can correct the form while viewing the data displayed in the area, for instance, information representing the motion of the object such as the model and the learner is represented as information representing motion of the skeleton including a plurality of joints as selected by user representing the motion of the model and representing the motion of the learner are superimposed and displayed such that the information processing apparatus performs the positioning and the time synchronization on the skeleton data to facilitate comparison between the image representing the motion of the model and the image representing the motion of the learner. In a case where a deficiency occurs on the data as a result of estimation of the shape data and the skeleton data with use of the data based on the imaging, processing to interpolate the deficiency is performed, paragraphs 34, 39, 41, 55).
Iwao fails to explicitly teach calculating degree of similarity or difference between a motion selected as first motion and other motions.
However, Iwamoto teaches similarity calculating unit 360 calculates degree of similarity or difference between a motion selected as first motion (posture/motion of first person) and other motions (different parameters of moving images) (calculation of a degree of similarity or difference as comparative analysis between different motions detected and in which similarity exceeding a prescribed value, paragraphs 19-25, 41, 53-57).
Iwao is combinable with Iwamoto because they both are in the same field of endeavor dealing with image analysis of motions in moving images.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Iwao with the teachings of Iwamoto for the benefit of making it possible to select an image that enables efficient observation of a difference in posture of a person from among a plurality of images obtained by photographing a person such that a partial similarity degree indicating a partial difference in attitude between the posture of the reference image and the partial posture of the partial image can be effectively detected as taught by Iwamoto at paragraphs 5-6.
Regarding claim 15, Combination of Iwao with Iwamoto further teaches wherein the focused variables include at least one of an item related to a game situation or an item related to a pitch (Iwao, motion information representing the motion of the plurality of joints of the object, wherein angle information on the joint to be displayed can be selected based on the user operation, wherein, in a case where motion of a wrist of a baseball pitcher is compared, positioning can be performed on a position of a joint of the wrist, paragraphs 31, 56).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if 101 rejection(s) as set forth in this action are overcome and are rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: cited prior arts and other related prior arts fail to teach al the limitations of claim 16 such as “wherein in processing of calculating degree of similarity between a pitching motion selected as the first motion and other pitching motions, for the N focused variables selected, the calculation unit performs processing of calculating N similarities as similarities each by using (N - 1) focused variables excluding one focused variable, where N is a natural number of 2 or more”.
Claim 17 is further dependent upon claim 16.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yang et al., US 2020/0222757 – teaches golf swing motion analysis.
Perry et al., US 2016/0307335 – teaches baseball pitching motion analysis.
Kim, US 2022/0126190 – teaches specific motion with skeleton data analysis.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAWANDEEP DHINGRA whose telephone number is (571) 270-1231. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00.
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, Abderrahim Merouan can be reached at (571) 270-5254. 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.
/PAWAN DHINGRA/Examiner, Art Unit 2683
/ABDERRAHIM MEROUAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2683
Prosecution Insights