CTNF 18/834,360 CTNF 74910 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 1-20 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. 07-34-07 AIA The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. Independent claims 1, 8, 9 and their respective claims recites “any template” or “the template” this is not clear as if this is a subset of “a preregistered template image” or a new set, this make the claims indefinite. Also, the limitation “a human body indicated by any template image to be less than a first threshold value is captured” is indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by this limitation. Also, claims recite “a human body”, “a movement”, “a pose” multiple times this is unclear if the pose is for the specific human body movement or pose is determined for a new person each time within the claim, and therefore, it make claims indefinite. 07-34-05 AIA Claim 4 recites the limitation " the keypoints” and “the plurality of keypoints " in line 5 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. 07-34-05 AIA Claim 5 recites the limitation “ the plurality of keypoints " in line 6 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. 07-34-05 AIA Claim 12 recites the limitation " the keypoints” and “the plurality of keypoints " in line 5 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. 07-34-05 AIA Claim 13 recites the limitation “ the plurality of keypoints " in line 5 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. 07-34-05 AIA Claim 18 recites the limitation " the keypoints” and “the plurality of keypoints " in line 5 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. 07-34-05 AIA Claim 19 recites the limitation “ the plurality of keypoints " in line 5 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 07-20-aia AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-6, 8-14, and 16-20 as best understood are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Musashi et al (JP 2016081286, an IDS document) in view of Wu et al (US Pub. 2021/0042565) . With respect to claim 1 as best understood Musashi discloses An image processing apparatus comprising: at least one memory configured to store one or more instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the one or more instructions to: detect a keypoint of a human body included in an image; compute a degree of similarity between a pose or a movement of a human body detected from the image and a pose or a movement of a human body indicated by a preregistered template image, based on the detected keypoint; determine a place in the image where a human body also with the degree of similarity to a pose or a movement of a human body indicated by any template image to be less than a first threshold value is captured; and output information indicating the determined place or a partial image acquired by cutting the determined place out of the image, as a candidate for the template image to be additionally registered in a decision apparatus that decides a pose or a movement of a human body detected from the image , based on a pose or a movement of a human body indicated by the template image, (see page 4, second pargparh wherein …The finger type is discriminated by matching with a skeleton model of a hand or using markers that can be distinguished from each other…; page 6, paragraphs 3 and 5, wherein … operation signal generation unit 130 of the operation terminal. The operation signal generation unit 130 includes a hand posture template 131, a hand posture determination unit 132, a hand movement template 133, a hand movement determination unit 134, and a determination result output unit 135. The hand posture determination unit 132 calculates the degree of similarity by comparing the measured fingertip coordinates and hand and finger images with the hand posture template. The similarities calculated for the respective templates are compared, and the template having the highest similarity is selected. The selected template is recognized as the current hand posture and output to the discrimination result output unit 135), as claimed. However, Musashi fails to explicitly disclose body indicated by any template image to be less than a first threshold value is captured; and output information indicating the determined place or a partial image acquired by cutting the determined place out of the image, as a candidate for the template image to be additionally registered in a decision apparatus that decides a pose or a movement of a human body detected from the image , (emphasis added), as claimed. Wu teaches body indicated by any template image to be less than a first threshold value is captured; and output information indicating the determined place or a partial image acquired by cutting the determined place out of the image, as a candidate for the template image to be additionally registered in a decision apparatus that decides a pose or a movement of a human body detected from the image , (emphasis added, see paragprah 0081, wherein … if the similarity is less than the second similarity threshold, the template data corresponding to the acquired image is added into the dynamic face database and the original database, the correspondence relationship between the person identification number allocated to the template data and the face feature is stored in the person feature mapping table, and the process ends), as claimed. It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art at the effective date of invention to combine the two references as they are analogous because they are solving similar problem of comparing images to detect object using image analysis. The teachings of Wu to update a dataset/template for recognizing the object if the similarity is less than a threshold can be incorporated into Musashi system to yield the predictable results. With respect to claim 2 as best understood, the combination of Musashi and Wu further discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to determine a place in the image where a human body not satisfying a first similarity condition to a pose or a movement of a human body indicated by any template image among human bodies also with the degree of similarity to a pose or a movement of a human body indicated by any template image to be less than the first threshold value is captured, (“not satisfying” simply means it’s not, and claim 1 rejection does explain that Wu in paragraph 0081 teaches if the similarity is less than a threshold the data is added to the dynamic dataset), as claimed. With respect to claims 3-5 as best understood, combination of Musashi and Wu discloses all the elements as claimed and as rejected in claim 2. However, they fail to explicitly disclose wherein the first similarity condition includes a condition that the degree of similarity is equal to or more than a second threshold value and is less than the first threshold value; wherein the first similarity condition includes a condition that the degree of similarity to a pose or a movement of a human body indicated by the template image computed based on a part of the keypoints among the plurality of keypoints detected from each human body is equal to or more than a third threshold value; and wherein the first similarity condition includes a condition that the degree of similarity to a pose or a movement of a human body indicated by the template image computed in consideration of a weighted value provided to each of the plurality of keypoints detected from each human body is equal to or more than a fourth threshold value, as claimed. However, setting up the threshold values in order to get the optimum results is a design choice. And, therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art the effective date of invention to simply utilize the design choice as appropriate for the function of the system. With respect to claim 6 as best understood, combination of Musashi and Wu further discloses wherein the image and the template image are a moving image, and a movement of a human body is indicated by a time change in a pose of a human body indicated by each of a plurality of template images included in the moving image, and the first similarity condition includes a condition of including a plurality of frame images indicating each human body with a pose in which a degree of similarity to a pose of a human body indicated by each of frame images in a predetermined proportion or more among the plurality of frame images included in the template image is equal to or more than a fifth threshold value, (this claim simply means that the images are of video and Musashi in Abstract states … an operation section extraction section 110 for extracting a position and motion of the operation section from a video captured by the imaging apparatus…), as claimed. Claims 8 and 9 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejections of claims 1, because claims 8 and 9 are claiming subject matter of similar scope as claimed in claims 1. Claims 10-14 and 16-20 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejections of claims 2-6, because claims 10-14 and 16-20 are claiming subject matter of similar scope as claimed in claims 2-6 . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 7 and 15 as best understood are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Musashi et al (JP 2016081286, an IDS document) in view of Wu et al (US Pub. 2021/0042565) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Comer et al (US Pub. 2020/0035009) . With respect to claim 7 as best understood, combination of Musashi and Wu discloses all the elements as claimed and as rejected in claim 1. However, they fail to explicitly disclose wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to divide a plurality of human bodies captured at the determined place into groups, based on a degree of similarity between poses or movements, and output a result of the division into groups, as claimed. Comer teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to divide a plurality of human bodies captured at the determined place into groups, based on a degree of similarity between poses or movements, and output a result of the division into groups, (see paragraph 0153, wherein …These points can be grouped into clusters using a metric that is indicative of the similarity of each point to the various clusters…), as claimed. It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art at the effective date of invention to combine the references as they are analogous because they are solving similar problem of comparing images to detect object using image analysis. The teachings of Comer to group the various sections in order to complete the final pose can be incorporated into Musashi system to yield the predictable results. Claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejections of claim 7, because claim 15is claiming subject matter of similar scope as claimed in claim 7 . Double Patenting 08-33 AIA The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. 08-35 Claim 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/834,431 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims in the instant application are the obvious variant of the co-pending application . This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIKKRAM BALI whose telephone number is (571)272-7415. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00AM-3:00PM. 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, Gregory Morse can be reached at 571-272-3838. 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. /VIKKRAM BALI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2663 Application/Control Number: 18/834,360 Page 2 Art Unit: 2663 Application/Control Number: 18/834,360 Page 3 Art Unit: 2663 Application/Control Number: 18/834,360 Page 4 Art Unit: 2663 Application/Control Number: 18/834,360 Page 5 Art Unit: 2663 Application/Control Number: 18/834,360 Page 6 Art Unit: 2663 Application/Control Number: 18/834,360 Page 7 Art Unit: 2663 Application/Control Number: 18/834,360 Page 8 Art Unit: 2663 Application/Control Number: 18/834,360 Page 9 Art Unit: 2663 Application/Control Number: 18/834,360 Page 10 Art Unit: 2663 Application/Control Number: 18/834,360 Page 11 Art Unit: 2663
Prosecution Insights