CTNF 18/849,484 CTNF 80041 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. Priority 02-26 AIA Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement 06-52 The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 09/21/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA 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. 07-30-05 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. 07-30-06 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: estimation unit, calculation unit, decision unit, detection unit, determination unit, designation unit, in claims 1-15. 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 § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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. Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 15 is directed to a program, and does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1, 6-8, 14, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nadler et al (US 20230103112 A1) (Nadler) in view of Koh et al. (US 10321728 B1) (Koh) . Regarding claim 1, Nadler discloses an information processing system (See Figs.1 and 8; para. 57) comprising: an estimation unit that estimates positions of joint points of a target person from an image of the target person captured for each frame (See paras. 54, 67, 77; e.g. point cloud data); a calculation unit that calculates a relative positional relationship between a position of a body region of the target person in the image of a first frame and the joint points estimated by the estimation unit for the image of the first frame (See para. 60; e.g. generating skeletal pose); a decision unit that determines the position of the body region of the target person in the image of an arbitrary frame different from the first frame (e.g. reference skeletal pose) on a basis of the positions of the joint points estimated by the estimation unit for the image of the arbitrary frame and the relative positional relationship (See para. 60-61); and a detection unit that detects a three-dimensional position change of the body region of the target person on a basis of the position of the body region of the target person in the image of the arbitrary frame (See para. 60-61; e.g. determining activity). Nadler discloses defining a bounding box corresponding to the skeletal pose (See para. 94). However, Nadler does not explicitly disclose designated by a user. Koh discloses a skeleton detection system. Koh discloses frame designated by a user (See col. 30 lines 63-67; allow the user to designate features). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the detection system of Koh with the detection system as disclosed by Nadler in order to improve accuracy of the detection system (See Koh col. 30 lines 63-67). Regarding claim 6, The information processing system according to claim 1, further comprising a designation unit by which the user designates the body region of the target person (See Koh col. 30 lines 63-67), wherein the designation unit automatically designates the position of the body region corresponding to a type of the body region designated by the user (See Nadler para. 48 and Koh col. 10 line 50 – col. 11 line 5). Please see the motivation stated in the rejection of claim 1. Regarding claim 7, The information processing system according to claim 6, wherein the designation unit corrects the position designated of the body region on a basis of an operation by the user (See Koh Figs 4-8; col. 29 lines 4-28). Please see the motivation stated in the rejection of claim 1. Regarding claim 8, The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the calculation unit calculates angle information and ratio information as the relative positional relationship (See Nadler para. 94-95). Regarding claim 14, this claim is drawn to a method that is performed by the device of claim 1, wherein claim 14 contains the same limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected upon the same basis. Regarding claim 15, this claim is drawn to a program (See Nadler para. 134 and 135) that is executed by the device of claim 1, wherein claim 15 contains the same limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected upon the same basis . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nadler et al (US 20230103112 A1) (Nadler) in view of Koh et al. (US 10321728 B1) (Koh) as applied to claim 1, 6-8, 14, and 15 above, and further in view of Fujiwara et al. (US 20150254841 A1) (Fujiwara) . Regarding claim 2, Nadler in view of Koh discloses the information processing system according to claim 1. Furthermore, Nadler discloses the ability to detect activities (See para. 60-61; e.g. determining activity) . However, Nadler in view of Koh does not disclose a determination unit that determines abnormal respiration on a basis of the position change of the body region of the target person. Fujiwara discloses an imaging system. Fujiwara discloses a determination unit that determines abnormal respiration on a basis of the position change of the body region of the target person (See Fig. 1; para. 06). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the detection system of Fujiwara with the detection system as disclosed by Nadler in view of Koh in order to expand activities the detection system can detect (See Nadler para. 49) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nadler et al (US 20230103112 A1) (Nadler) in view of Koh et al. (US 10321728 B1) (Koh) as applied to claim 1, 6-8, 14, and 15 above, and further in view of Arata et al. (US 20160125243 A1) (Arata) . Regarding claim 9, Nadler in view of Koh discloses the information processing system according to claim 8. Furthermore, Nadler in view of Koh discloses region designated by the user (See Koh col. 30 lines 63-67). However, Nadler in view of Koh does not disclose wherein the calculation unit calculates, as the angle information, an angle between a line segment connecting two of the joint points and a line segment connecting a position of each of the two of the joint points and the position of the body region. Arata discloses a skeleton detection system (See Fig. 1). Arata discloses wherein the calculation unit calculates, as the angle information, an angle between a line segment connecting two of the joint points and a line segment connecting a position of each of the two of the joint points and the position of the body region (See Figs. 3A-3D; 58-66). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the detection system of Arata with the detection system as disclosed by Nadler in view of Koh in order to improve accuracy of the detection system (See Arata para. 08). Regarding claim 10, The information processing system according to claim 9, wherein the calculation unit calculates the angle for each of a plurality of combinations in which one of the two of the joint points is different from other combinations, the plurality of combinations being combinations of the two of the joint points (See Arata Figs. 3A-3D, 4A-4D-; 58-73). Please see the motivation stated in the rejection of claim 9 . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 3-5 and 11-13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please take note of Misharin (US 20210219855 A1) for their system is detecting abnormal respiration . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joseph G Ustaris whose telephone number is (571)272-7383. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5pm M-Th. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Colleen A Fauz can be reached at 571-272-1667. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /JOSEPH G USTARIS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2483 Application/Control Number: 18/849,484 Page 2 Art Unit: 2483 Application/Control Number: 18/849,484 Page 3 Art Unit: 2483 Application/Control Number: 18/849,484 Page 4 Art Unit: 2483 Application/Control Number: 18/849,484 Page 5 Art Unit: 2483 Application/Control Number: 18/849,484 Page 6 Art Unit: 2483 Application/Control Number: 18/849,484 Page 7 Art Unit: 2483 Application/Control Number: 18/849,484 Page 8 Art Unit: 2483 Application/Control Number: 18/849,484 Page 9 Art Unit: 2483 Application/Control Number: 18/849,484 Page 10 Art Unit: 2483 Application/Control Number: 18/849,484 Page 11 Art Unit: 2483
Prosecution Insights