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 .
Claims 1-19 are pending in the application.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 recites “an imaging unit that includes, in an imaging range, an operator of a money handling transaction apparatus and surroundings of the operator”. It is suggested to replace “includes” with “images” to avoid ambiguity.
Claim 1 and dependent claims recite “an operator” and/or “a person”. It’s not clear if these two terms are interchangeable. Clarification is required. Claim 10 has similar issue.
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. The following table lists the occurrences that use means and corresponding structure and associated algorithm.
Claim no.
112(f) elements
Corresponding structure (PGPub)
Associated algorithm (PGPub)
1
an imaging unit that includes …
FIG. 2; [0040] “The imaging unit 23 is a camera …”
1
a posture detection unit that detects …
FIG. 2; para [0048] “CPU”.
Para. 0049, 0066, 0083
1/2/4/5/18
2/4/5
5
19
a determination unit that determines …
… uses
… compares, identifies
… measures and records
FIG. 2; para [0048] “CPU”.
FIG. 5-6; Para. 0050-0055, 0067-0068, 0084-0088, 0090, 0092, 0096, 0115-0116
1/3/6/7/9/11/17
2
16
18
an instruction unit … generates …
… uses
… registers
… switches
FIG. 2; para [0048] “CPU”.
FIG. 4; para. 0056-0063, 0069-0081, 0089, 0091, 0093-0095, 0110-0111, 0115, 0119, 0122, 0124, 0134-0135, 0156
11/12/13/14
12/13
15
an estimation
unit that estimates
… determines
… stores
FIG. 10 #21d”; para [0048] “CPU”. Para. [0099] “The behavior estimation unit 21d, the facial expression detection unit 21e, and the object detection unit 21f are included in the monitoring and control unit 21’.
Para. 0100-0102, 0105-0109, 0125
13
a facial expression detection unit that detects
FIG. 10 #21e”; para [0048] “CPU”. Para. [0099] “The behavior estimation unit 21d, the facial expression detection unit 21e, and the object detection unit 21f are included in the monitoring and control unit 21’.
Para. 0103, 0151
17
an object detection unit that detects
FIG. 10 #21f”; para [0048] “CPU”. Para. [0099] “The behavior estimation unit 21d, the facial expression detection unit 21e, and the object detection unit 21f are included in the monitoring and control unit 21’.
Para. 0112-0113
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
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 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Analysis for claim 10 is provided in the following. Claim 10 is reproduced in the following (annotation added):
10. A monitoring method causing a monitoring apparatus to perform:
(a) an imaging step of imaging an operator of a money handling transaction apparatus, and surroundings of the operator;
(b) a posture detection step of detecting a joint position related to a skeleton in an image of a person included in an imaging result of the imaging step;
(c) a determination step of determining a motion of the person, based on a detection result of the posture detection step; and
(d) an instruction step of generating an instruction that indicates a response to the person, based on a determination result of the determination step,
(e) wherein the determination step determines the motion of the person by comparing the detection result of the posture detection step with operator motion pattern data that is defined in advance about a motion of the operator, and the instruction step refers to instruction pattern data that associates the motion with the instruction, and generates the instruction.
Step 1: Evaluating whether the claim belongs to one of the statutory categories.
Claim 10 recites a method. Thus, the claim is directed to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A Prong One: Evaluating whether the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon). If no exception is recited, the claim is eligible. This concludes the eligibility analysis. If the claim recites an exception, go to Step 2A Prong Two.
Claim 10 steps (b), (c) and (d) in combination with information in (e) can be practically performed in the human mind. These concepts fall into the “mental processes” group of abstract ideas, which is observation, evaluation and/or judgment. The limitations, interpreted under their broadest reasonable interpretation and in consistent with the specification, cover performance of the limitations in the mind or by generic computer components. See MPEP 2106.04 and the 2019 PEG. (Step 2A Prong One YES)
Step 2A Prong Two: Evaluating whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. If the answer to (a) is YES and (b) is NO, go to Step 2B; if the answer to (a) and (b) is YES, go to PATHWAY B, i.e., the claim is not directed to a judicial exception and the claim is eligible.
In claim 10, step (a) is considered additional elements, which is data gathering, an insignificant extra-solution activity. Claim 10 further recites “a monitoring apparatus” for performing the method. Note the monitoring apparatus is merely recited as a tool to perform the mental processes, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. (Step 2A Prong Two NO).
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim.
In claim 10, step (a) is considered additional elements, which is data gathering, an insignificant extra-solution activity. Data gathering is well-understood, routine and conventional activity previously known to the industry. Claim 10 further recites “a monitoring apparatus” at a high level of generality. Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d) (Step 2B: NO). Claim 10 is not eligible.
Claim 1, an independent apparatus claim, recites similar steps as recited in claim 10. However, in claim 1 “an imaging unit”, “a posture detection unit”, “a determination unit”, “an instruction unit” and associated function are interpreted as invoking 35 USC 112 (f) claim interpretation. The corresponding structure of “a posture detection unit”, “a determination unit” and “an instruction unit” disclosed in the spec is para. [0048] “CPU”, i.e., a general purpose computer. To claim a means for performing a specific computer-implemented function and then to disclose only a general purpose computer as the structure designed to perform that function amounts to pure functional claiming. Aristocrat, 521 F.3d 1328 at 1333, 86 USPQ2d at 1239. In this instance, the structure corresponding to a 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation for a computer-implemented function must include the algorithm needed to transform the general purpose computer or microprocessor disclosed in the specification (See MPEP 2181 II (B)). As described in the specification and designated above, the algorithms disclosed in the following paras. are related to the above units: para. 0049-0063, 0066-0081, 0083-0096, 0110-0111, 0115-0116, 0119, 0122, 0124, 0134-0135 and 0156. These paragraphs describe a specific manner of detecting a skeleton of a person, determining a motion of the person, and generating instructions based on the determination result, therefore provide improvements to the functioning of a computer, and apply or use the judicial exception in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Claim 1 is 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)(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.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by YOSHIDA et al. (US 20240420506 A1, hereafter YOSHIDA).
As per claim 10, YOSHIDA teaches a monitoring method (Abstract; FIG. 2) causing a monitoring apparatus (Abstract) to perform:
an imaging step (FIG. 3 #300; FIG. 11 S400) of imaging an operator of a money handling transaction apparatus, and surroundings of the operator (FIG. 3; para. [0048] “The user U operates the display panel of the fuel filler 50 to select a payment method (for example, cash or credit card) …”; para. [0058]);
a posture detection step of detecting a joint position related to a skeleton in an image of a person included in an imaging result of the imaging step (FIG. 5; FIG. 11 S404; para. [0077] “… the extraction unit 107 extracts skeleton information of at least a part of the body of the person based on features such as joints of the person recognized in the body image using a skeleton estimation technique using machine learning. The skeleton information is information including a “key point” that is a characteristic point such as a joint and a “bone (bone link)” indicating a link between the key points”; FIG. 5; para. [0097]);
a determination step of determining a motion of the person, based on a detection result of the posture detection step (FIG. 11 S405, S406; para. [0098] “The server 100 compares such skeleton information with registration skeleton information corresponding to the entire body, and determines whether the skeleton information and the registration skeleton information are similar to each other, thereby specifying each motion”); and
an instruction step of generating an instruction that indicates a response to the person, based on a determination result of the determination step (FIG. 11 S408, S409; para. [0092]), wherein
the determination step determines the motion of the person by comparing the detection result of the posture detection step with operator motion pattern data that is defined in advance about a motion of the operator (FIG. 7 showing motion registration process; FIG. 8-9 showing registered motions and motion sequences; FIG. 11 S407; para. [0098] “The server 100 compares such skeleton information with registration skeleton information corresponding to the entire body, and determines whether the skeleton information and the registration skeleton information are similar to each other, thereby specifying each motion”), and
the instruction step refers to instruction pattern data that associates the motion with the instruction, and generates the instruction (para. [0092] “As an example, a display mode (font, color, thickness, blinking, or the like of characters) in a case where the warning information is displayed may be changed according to the type of the attention motion sequence, or a volume or a sound itself in a case where the warning information is output by sound may be changed”; FIG. 10; para. [0109]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9 and 11-19 are allowed.
The following is Examiner’s reasons for identification of allowable subject matter.
In claim 1 “an imaging unit”, “a posture detection unit”, “a determination unit”, “an instruction unit” and associated function are interpreted as invoking 35 USC 112(f) claim interpretation. The corresponding structure of “a posture detection unit”, “a determination unit” and “an instruction unit” is para [0048] “CPU”, i.e., a general purpose computer. To claim a means for performing a specific computer-implemented function and then to disclose only a general purpose computer as the structure designed to perform that function amounts to pure functional claiming. Aristocrat, 521 F.3d 1328 at 1333, 86 USPQ2d at 1239. In this instance, the structure corresponding to a 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation for a computer-implemented function must include the algorithm needed to transform the general purpose computer or microprocessor disclosed in the specification (See MPEP 2181 II (B)). As described in the specification and designated above, the algorithms disclosed in the following paragraphs are related to the above units: para. 0049-0063, 0066-0081, 0083-0096, 0110-0111, 0115-0116, 0119, 0122, 0124, 0134-0135 and 0156. Therefore, the corresponding algorithms in the above paragraphs are being read into the 112(f) elements. Prior art, either applied alone, or in combination with, does not teach each and every limitation as recited in claim 1 in view of 112f claim interpretation.
As per claim 1, the closest prior art includes YOSHIDA et al. (US 20240420506 A1, hereafter YOSHIDA). YOSHIDA teaches similar steps as presented above in claim 10 under broadest reasonable interpretation.
Additional art KAWAI et al. (US 20250029458 A1) discloses a method for detecting if a user who has visited an ATM is talking on a phone based on a captured image of a target area of the ATM (Abstract; FIG. 3). Specifically the method comprises: capturing image data of a user who is using an ATM, extracting skeleton data of the user from the captured image data, comparing the extracted skeleton with pre-registered skeleton data in a database, and if a match is found, determining that the user is making a phone call. See FIG. 3, 5 and 8, para. [0134]-[0137].
Prior art searched but not cited is recorded in PTO-892.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XUEMEI G CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3480. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm.
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, John M Villecco can be reached on (571) 272-7319. 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.
/XUEMEI G CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2661
Prosecution Insights