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 .
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 (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 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.
Claims 1, 2, 7-9 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa (US Pub. 2021/0158566).
With respect to claim 1, Ogawa discloses A key-point associating apparatus comprising:
at least one memory that is configured to store instructions; and at least one processor that is configured to execute the instructions to (see figure 1):
acquire a target image in which one or more persons are captured (see figure 2, 101 image acquisition unit);
detect, for each person, [a basis key-point] and one or more target key-points from the target image, [the basis key-point of the person indicating a location of a basis part of the person], the target key-point of the person indicating a location of a target part of the person, the target part being different from the basis part, (see paragraph 0039, wherein … Joint positions 403 and 404 each indicate an estimated neck part. Joint positions 405 and 406 each indicate an estimated waist part. Joint positions 407 and 408 each indicate an estimated right knee part. Joint positions 409 and 410 each indicate an estimated left knee part. Joint positions 411 and 412 each indicate an estimated right ankle part. Joint positions 413 and 414 each indicate an estimated left ankle part… [all the joint positions are read as target key-points];
generate a feature map for each target part based on the target image, the feature map of the target part indicating, for each basis part in the target image, a region connecting the basis part and the target part that belongs to the person same as the basis part; and associate, based on the feature map, the basis key-point with one or more target key-points that belong to the person same as the basis key-point, (see paragraph 0036, wherein …The CNN may be trained to extract a feature for detecting a joint position of an object and a feature for identifying an individual object included in an image. The parameter set before the training may be a set of random values. …A joint position of an object included in an image and a score map indicating to which object a joint belongs are estimated using the extracted feature…; and paragraph 0041, wherein …In step S303, the estimation unit 102 estimates a score map including a score for identifying an individual object from the feature extracted by the CNN, using the pre-trained model…; see figure 15B, for two objects with the linking between the joints), as claimed.
However, Ogawa fails to explicitly disclose detect, for each person, a basis key-point and one or more target key-points from the target image, the basis key-point of the person indicating a location of a basis part of the person, as claimed.
Ogawa teaches the two joints 501 and 504 for the two different objects these are read as basis key point for indicating the location of the person that is specific to the person, (see figure 15B with 501 and 504 as head vertex) i.e. detect, for each person, a basis key-point and one or more target key-points from the target image, the basis key-point of the person indicating a location of a basis part of the person, as claimed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art at the effective date of invention to simply utilize the teaching of Ogawa to have to key people with two key points to incorporate into the system to yield the predictable results of mapping the joints of the particular person to the basis key point as claimed.
With respect to claim 2, Ogawa further discloses wherein each pixel in the region of the feature map has a value larger than values of pixels outside the region of the feature map, (see figure 15A, regions with the object are with different color i.e. pixels with different values), as claimed.
With respect to claim 7, Ogawa further discloses wherein the at least one memory stores a machine learning-based model for each target part that is configured to take the target image as input and to output the feature map of the target part in response to the target image being input thereinto, and wherein the generation of the feature map of the target part includes: inputting the target image into the model of the target part; and acquiring the feature map of the target part that is output from the model of the target part, (see figure 5, and paragraph 0033 for using machine learning model), as claimed.
Claims 8, 9 and 14 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejections for claims 1, 2 and 7, because claims 8, 9 and 14 is claiming subject matter of similar scope as claimed in claims 1, 2 and 7.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejections for claims 1 and 2, because claims 15 and 16 is claiming subject matter of similar scope as claimed in claims 1 and 2.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6, 10-13 and 17-20 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
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
Prosecution Insights