CTNF 18/856,672 CTNF 88481 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. 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. The following title is suggested: INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS, INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD, AND PROGRAM FOR REPLACING USER MOTION DATA WITH REFERENCE MOTION DATA . 07-30-03-h AIA 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. 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) because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder “unit” 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 limitations are: “an acquiring unit,” “an imparting unit,” and “a replacing unit” in claim 1. Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they 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 these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). 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 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 17 describes a computer program. Computer programs are not physical objects. They are neither computer components nor statutory processes, as they are not “acts” being performed. Such claimed computer programs do not define any structural and functional interrelationships between the computer program and other claimed elements of a computer which permit the computer program's functionality to be realized. In contrast, a claimed non-transitory computer-readable medium encoded with a computer program is a computer element which defines structural and functional interrelationships between the computer program and the rest of the computer which permit the computer program's functionality to be realized, and is thus statutory. See Lowry, 32 F.3d at 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d at 1035. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15-03-aia AIA Claim s 1-4, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Takaki et al. (US 2023/0162458; hereinafter “Takaki”) . Regarding claim 1 , Takaki discloses An information processing apparatus (“an information processing apparatus,” para. 1) , comprising: an acquiring unit configured to acquire a motion data group indicating time-series data of motion of a user (“The sensor unit includes a plurality of sensors, and supplies various sensor data acquired by sensing the body motion of the student,” Takaki, para. 104) ; an imparting unit configured to impart meta-information related to a basic movement in association with motion data with respect to the motion data group acquired by the acquiring unit (“On the basis of the sensor data from the sensor unit, the feature point extraction unit extracts, as feature point information of the person, skeleton information indicating a skeleton and joint points of the person,” Takaki, para. 114) ; and a replacing unit configured to replace the motion data associated with the meta-information corresponding to a designated section indicating a section designated by the user among the motion data group with reference motion data to be a reference (“a reference digital twin, which is a virtual object reflecting the body motion, such as aerobics, yoga, and dance, of an instructor TE who is a reference person in a studio SU, is superimposed on a user digital twin,” Takaki, para. 53; “if the user ST raises one hand and it is determined that the hand of the corresponding student digital twin 30ST overlaps the area of the button 41, the lesson by the instructor TE is started,” Takaki, para. 62). Regarding claim 2 , Takaki discloses replace a plurality of pieces of motion data associated with a basic movement of the designated section with the reference motion data by referring to the meta-information (“the feature point extraction unit extracts, as feature point information of the person, skeleton information,” Takaki, para. 114; “the fitting points of the student digital twin match the fitting points of the teacher digital twin,” Takaki, para. 65; “the teacher digital twin is adjusted so that the teacher digital twin reflecting the body motion of the teacher who is the reference person (second person) matches the student digital twin,” Takaki, para. 311). Regarding claim 3 , Takaki discloses impart the meta-information with respect to the motion data group based on a position and posture information of each region of the user (“the feature point extraction unit extracts, as feature point information of the person, skeleton information,” Takaki, para. 114). Regarding claim 4 , Takaki discloses wherein the motion data group includes time-series data of motion of the user who moves to some kind of music (“class such as aerobics, yoga, and dance,” Takaki, para. 75). Regarding claims 16 and 17 , they are rejected using the same citations and rationales described in the rejection of claim 1 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takaki in view of Shiratori et al. (“Detecting Dance Motion Structure through Music Analysis”; hereinafter “Shiratori”) . Regarding claim 5 , Takaki does not disclose acquire music information indicating information related to the music, and the imparting unit is configured to impart the meta-information with respect to the motion data group based on the music information acquired by the acquiring unit . In the same art of recognizing dance motions, Shiratori teaches acquire music information indicating information related to the music, and the imparting unit is configured to impart the meta-information with respect to the motion data group based on the music information acquired by the acquiring unit (“we propose a method to detect key poses and to segment dance motions through beat tracking from music data for extracting primitive motions. We detect the musical rhythm by the beat tracking,” pg. 1, col. 2, para. 2). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Shiratori to Takaki. The motivation would have been to increase motion detection accuracy . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Takaki and Shiratori, and further in view of Yao et al. (“Temporal Action Detection in Untrimmed Videos from Fine to Coarse Granularity”; hereinafter “Yao”) . Regarding claim 6 , the combination of Takaki and Shiratori does not disclose impart different pieces of meta-information for each level with respect to the motion data group among a plurality of levels . In the same art of action detection, Yao teaches impart different pieces of meta-information for each level with respect to the motion data group among a plurality of levels (“Temporal action detection in long, untrimmed videos … we make the most of different granular classifiers and propose to detect action from fine to coarse granularity,” Yao, abstract). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Yao to the combination of Takaki and Shiratori. The motivation would have been “the accuracy is improved” (Yao, pg. 10, sec. 4.3). Regarding claim 7 , the combination of Takaki, Shiratori, and Yao renders obvious wherein the plurality of levels differ from one another in a granularity of the basic movement to be imparted (‘Temporal action detection in long, untrimmed videos … we make the most of different granular classifiers and propose to detect action from fine to coarse granularity,” Yao, abstract; see claim 6 for motivation to combine). Regarding claim 8 , the combination of Takaki, Shiratori, and Yao renders obvious replace the motion data associated with a basic movement that corresponds to the designated section with reference motion data (“a reference digital twin, which is a virtual object reflecting the body motion, such as aerobics, yoga, and dance, of an instructor TE who is a reference person in a studio SU, is superimposed on a user digital twin,” Takaki, para. 53) retrieved using a feature amount for each time or for each region of the user calculated from the motion data group included in the designated section (“the feature point extraction unit extracts, as feature point information of the person, skeleton information,” Takaki, para. 114; “the fitting points of the student digital twin match the fitting points of the teacher digital twin,” Takaki, para. 65). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 9-15 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 9 , weighting parameters in computer graphics are generally known. However, in the context of the claimed acquiring unit, imparting unit, and replacing unit for replacing user motion data with reference motion data based on meta-information of the motion data associated with music information, wherein the meta- information is applied based on a plurality of levels of granularity of basic movements and reference motion data is retrieved using feature amounts, the known prior art does not teach or render obvious wherein a weighting parameter prepared for each time or for each region is applied to the feature amount . This limitation is not necessarily allowable in a broader context, but when considered in light of the current claim scope, including each of the interconnected limitations of the independent and intermediate claims, this claim limitation overcomes the known prior art. Regarding claims 10-15 , they are allowable based on their dependence on claim 9. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ryan McCulley whose telephone number is (571)270-3754. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 8:00am - 4:30pm. 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, Kee Tung can be reached at (571) 272-7794. 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. /RYAN MCCULLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2611 Application/Control Number: 18/856,672 Page 2 Art Unit: 2611 Application/Control Number: 18/856,672 Page 3 Art Unit: 2611 Application/Control Number: 18/856,672 Page 4 Art Unit: 2611 Application/Control Number: 18/856,672 Page 5 Art Unit: 2611 Application/Control Number: 18/856,672 Page 6 Art Unit: 2611 Application/Control Number: 18/856,672 Page 7 Art Unit: 2611 Application/Control Number: 18/856,672 Page 8 Art Unit: 2611 Application/Control Number: 18/856,672 Page 9 Art Unit: 2611 Application/Control Number: 18/856,672 Page 10 Art Unit: 2611
Prosecution Insights