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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/23/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “at least one processor configured to execute instructions to do posture evaluation process” in lines 3-4. This should read “at least one processor configured to execute instructions to do a posture evaluation process”.
Claim 18 recites “based on a subject person to be presented to whom the result is to be presented” in lines 6-7. It is suggested to amend the claim to read “based on a subject person whom the result is to be presented” to increase clarity of the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. A streamlined analysis of claim 9 follows.
Step 1
Regarding claim 9, the claim recites a series of steps or acts, including estimating a state of at least a spine. Thus, the claim is directed to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exception. The step of estimating a state of at least a spine sets forth a judicial exception. This step describes a concept performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Thus, the claim is drawn to a Mental Process, which is an Abstract Idea.
The step of calculating a feature including at least a feature of an inclination of a head relative to a trunk, based on body information including information indicating at least an inclination of the trunk and an inclination of the head in a body of a subject person in a backward-bending posture in which the subject person is bent backward describes the use of mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and/or mathematical calculations. Thus, the claim is drawn to a Mathematical Concept, which is an Abstract Idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim fails to recite an additional element or a combination of additional elements to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception. Claim 9 recites estimating a state of at least a spine, which is merely the judicial exception. The estimating of a state of a spine does not provide an improvement to the technological field, the method does not effect a particular treatment or effect a particular change based on the estimated state of a spine, nor does the method use a particular machine to perform the Abstract Idea.
Step 2B
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception. Besides the Abstract Ideas, the claim does not recite additional method steps, nor do the combination of Abstract Ideas amount to significantly more than judicial exceptions. Furthermore, it is well established that the mere physical or tangible nature of additional elements, such as the posture evaluation apparatus, do not automatically confer eligibility on a claim directed to an abstract idea (see, e.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S.Ct. 2347, 2358-59 (2014)).
Consideration of the additional elements as a combination also adds no other meaningful limitations to the exception not already present when the elements are considered separately. Unlike the eligible claim in Diehr in which the elements limiting the exception are individually conventional, but taken together act in concert to improve a technical field, the claim here does not provide an improvement to the technical field. Even when viewed as a combination, the additional elements fail to transform the exception into a patent-eligible application of that exception. Thus, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. The claim is therefore drawn to non-statutory subject matter.
The same rationale applies to claims 1 and 15.
Regarding claims 1 and 15, the devices recited in the claims are generic devices comprising generic computer components configured to perform the Abstract Idea. The recited memory and processor of claim 1 define a generic computer system is configured to perform the Abstract Idea. The recited non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 15 defines a generic computer component configured to be used in conjunction with another generic computer component to perform the Abstract Idea. According to section 2106.05(f) of the MPEP, merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea does not integrate the Abstract Idea into a practical application.
The dependent claims also fail to add something more to the abstract independent claims as they generally recite method steps pertaining to the data used to perform the Abstract Idea (claims 2-7, 10-14, 16-20), details of the calculating step (claims 4-7, 12-14, 18-20), and the display of the Abstract Idea (claim 8). The calculating and estimating steps recited in the independent claims maintain a high level of generality even when considered in combination with the dependent claims.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chinese Patent Publication 111814772 by Gao et al, hereinafter “Gao”.
Regarding claim 1, Gao teaches a posture evaluation apparatus comprising: at least one memory storing instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to do posture evaluation process (Pg. 4, par. 1; “In a third aspect, an embodiment of the present invention provides an electronic device, comprising a processor, a communication interface, a memory and a bus, wherein the processor, the communication interface, the memory are communicated with each other through the bus; the processor can call the logic command in the memory, so as to perform the steps of the method provided by the first aspect”), wherein the posture evaluation process includes: calculating a feature (Pg. 2, Contents of the Invention; extracting a human body side framework and human body outline) including at least a feature of an inclination of a head relative to a trunk (Pg. 3, Contents of the Invention; the side bending angle comprises the head bending angle, a trunk bending angle, and an upper chest bending angle. The combination of these angles includes the head angle relative to the trunk.), based on body information including information indicating at least an inclination of the trunk and an inclination of the head in a body of a subject person in a backward-bending posture in which the subject person is bent backward (The feature is calculated based on the side image, which includes information of the subject in whichever posture the user is in. The invention of Gao specifically teaches an example of a person in a front-bending posture, however the device of Gao can capture an image of a person in a back-bending posture and can calculate keypoints based on this posture.); and estimating a state of at least a spine in the backward-bending posture, based on the feature (Pg. 6, pars. 6-7; The side bending angle can be compared to a standard side bending angle under normal posture to determine a posture problem or severity of posture).
Regarding claim 2, Gao teaches the posture evaluation apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the body information includes an image of a side surface of the body of the subject person being captured in the backward-bending posture or information extracted from the image (the body information includes the side image of the body and the keypoints extracted from the image, as shown in Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 3, Gao teaches the posture evaluation apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the body information includes information indicating a position of the head relative to the trunk in the body of the subject person in the backward-bending posture (Any side image of a human body would contain information of the anterior-posterior position of the head and the trunk of the body), and the feature includes a feature of the position of the head relative to the trunk (Pg. 11-12, par. 10; Each node (i.e., keypoint) is mapped to a two-dimensional coordinate point, defining a position of each keypoint, including the head and the trunk. Further, the relative position of the head and trunk can be used to determine the head angle in the cosine calculations (Pg. 9, pars. 9-11)).
Regarding claim 4, Gao teaches the posture evaluation apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the body information includes first position information indicating positions of at least a cervical vertebrae, hip joints, eyes, and ears of the subject person in the backward-bending posture (Pg. 2-3, Contents of the Invention; and Pg. 11-12, par. 10; Each node (i.e., keypoint) is mapped to a two-dimensional coordinate point, defining a position of each keypoint. The head keypoint indicates the positions of the eyes and ears. The neck point is indicative of at least a cervical vertebrae, and the sacroiliac joint node is indicative of at least the hip joints), and the calculating includes calculating an inclination of the trunk (Pg. 9, steps 131-132, the inclination of the trunk can be considered the waist bending angle and/or the upper breast bending angle) and an inclination of the head (Pg. 9, step 133; the head front angle), based on the first position information (These angles are based on the side image), and calculating the feature including at least the feature of the inclination of the head relative to the trunk by using the calculated inclination of the trunk and the calculated inclination of the head (These angles comprise the side bending angle, therefore the side bending angle must be determined by using the combination of the head and trunk angles).
Regarding claim 5, Gao teaches the posture evaluation apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the body information includes first position information indicating positions of at least a cervical vertebrae, hip joints, eyes, and ears of the subject person in the backward-bending posture (See the rejection of claim 4), and the calculating includes calculating an inclination of the trunk (See the rejection of claim 4), an inclination of the head (See the rejection of claim 4), and a position of the head relative to the trunk (Pg. 9, pars. 9-11. See pg. 7/13 of the original (untranslated) publication to see the formula; The angles of each of the head and trunk can be calculated by using the cosine calculations based on the keypoints used. The cosine calculations require the length between keypoints (lAB and lAC), which define positions between these points. The head angle is based on shoulder points, which is a part of the trunk, therefore it comprises a position of the head relative to the trunk), based on the first position information (These angles and positions are based on the side image), and calculating a feature indicating at least the inclination and a position of the head relative to the trunk by using the calculated inclination of the trunk, the calculated inclination of the head, and the calculated position of the head relative to the trunk (These angles comprise the side bending angle, therefore the side bending angle must be determined by using the combination of the head and trunk angles. The position of the head relative to the trunk is used to determine the head forward angle and is therefore also used.).
Regarding claim 6, Gao teaches the posture evaluation apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the body information includes information indicating an edge on an anterior surface side of the subject person in the backward-bending posture (Pg. 5, pars. 6-7; Before determining the keypoints, the human body outline may be obtained from the side image in order to simplify obtaining the keypoints. The human body outline comprises the outline of the entire body, including anterior and posterior edges), and the calculating includes calculating at least a feature relating to a pelvis or a spine (The waist angle relates to at least the pelvis and the upper chest angle relates to at least the spine), based on the information indicating the edge on the anterior surface side (The human body outline is used to determine the keypoints, which is used to determine the angles).
Regarding claim 7, Gao teaches the posture evaluation apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the body information includes second position information indicating positions of an anterior superior iliac spine and an posterior superior iliac spine of the subject person in the backward-bending posture (Pg. 2-3, Contents of the Invention; and Pg. 11-12, par. 10; Each node (i.e., keypoint) is mapped to a two-dimensional coordinate point, defining a position of each keypoint. The sacroiliac joint node is indicative of at least the anterior and superior iliac spines, as these bony landmarks are a part of the ilium, which is a part of the sacroiliac joint.), and the calculating includes calculating at least a feature relating to a pelvis or a spine based on the second position information (Pg. 9, steps 131-132; The sacroiliac joint node is used to determine the waist bending angle and the upper chest bending angle. The waist angle relates to at least the pelvis and the upper chest angle relates to at least the spine).
Regarding claim 8, Gao teaches the posture evaluation apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the posture evaluation process further includes: displaying at least a part of a result estimated by the estimating on a display (Pg. 13, par. 4; “The method can intuitively display the deviation condition of each bending angle and the standard bending angle of the object to be evaluated”. Pg. 16, par. 5; Further, the display may be a part of the unit or separate); and modifying at least one of a display form and a display content of the result, based on a subject person to be presented to whom the result is to be presented (Pg. 13, par. 4; “The method not only can intuitively display the severity degree of each bending angle of the object to be evaluated, but also set the weight value for each angle, which can highlight the importance of a certain part, so as to more conveniently determine the severity degree of the important part relative to other part posture problem.”. Therefore the display of the severity degree can be modified based on the person to whom the result is to be presented).
Regarding claim 15, Gao teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium configured to store a program causing a computer to execute posture evaluation processing of (Pg. 4, par. 2; “In a fourth aspect, an embodiment of the present invention provides a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, which is stored with a computer program, the computer program is executed by a processor to implement the steps of the method provided by the first aspect.”): calculating a feature including at least a feature of an inclination of a head relative to a trunk based on body information including information indicating at least an inclination of the trunk and an inclination of the head in a body of a subject person in a backward-bending posture in which the subject person is bent backward (See the rejection of claim 1), and estimating a state of at least a spine in the backward-bending posture, based on the feature (See the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 16, Gao teaches the non-transitory computer readable medium according to claim 15, wherein the body information includes an image of a side surface of the body of the subject person being captured in the backward-bending posture or information extracted from the image (See the rejection of claim 2).
Regarding claim 17, Gao teaches the non-transitory computer readable medium according to claim 15, wherein the body information includes information indicating a position of the head relative to the trunk in the body of the subject person in the backward-bending posture (See the rejection of claim 3), and the feature includes a feature of the position of the head relative to the trunk (See the rejection of claim 3).
Regarding claim 18, Gao teaches the non-transitory computer readable medium according to claim 15, wherein the body information includes first position information indicating positions of at least a cervical vertebrae, hip joints, eyes, and ears of the subject person in the backward-bending posture (See the rejection of claim 4), and the calculating includes calculating an inclination of the trunk and an inclination of the head, based on the first position information (See the rejection of claim 4), and calculating the feature including at least the feature of the inclination of the head relative to the trunk by using the calculated inclination of the trunk and the calculated inclination of the head (See the rejection of claim 4).
Regarding claim 19, Gao teaches the non-transitory computer readable medium according to claim 17, wherein the body information includes first position information indicating positions of at least a cervical vertebrae, hip joints, eyes, and ears of the subject person in the backward-bending posture (See the rejection of claim 5), and the calculating includes calculating an inclination of the trunk, an inclination of the head, and a position of the head relative to the trunk (See the rejection of claim 5), based on the first position information (See the rejection of claim 5), and calculating a feature indicating at least the inclination and a position of the head relative to the trunk by using the calculated inclination of the trunk, the calculated inclination of the head, and the calculated position of the head relative to the trunk (See the rejection of claim 5).
Regarding claim 20, Gao teaches the non-transitory computer readable medium according to claim 15, wherein the body information includes information indicating an edge on an anterior surface side of the subject person in the backward-bending posture (See the rejection of claim 6), and the calculating includes calculating at least a feature relating to a pelvis or a spine (See the rejection of claim 6), based on the information indicating the edge on the anterior surface side (See the rejection of claim 6).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao in view of Non-Patent Literature Causes and Treatment of Swayback Posture (2020) by Yetman, hereinafter “Yetman”.
Regarding claim 9, Gao teaches a posture evaluation method including, by a posture evaluation apparatus: calculating a feature including at least a feature of an inclination of a head relative to a trunk, based on body information including information indicating at least an inclination of the trunk and an inclination of the head in a body of a subject person (See the rejection of claim 1), and estimating a state of at least a spine, based on the feature (See the rejection of claim 1).
Gao does not teach the subject person being in a backward-bending posture in which the subject person is bent backward.
Yetman teaches that swayback is a common pattern of posture dysfunction that comprises the pelvis being shifted forward and a backward curve of the back (see the first image of Pg. 2). Yetman teaches that this posture dysfunction also comprises an exaggerated inward curve in the lower back and an exaggerated outward curve in the upper back (See pg. 2). This posture can put the subject at an increased risk of developing back and hip injuries. It can also contribute to musculoskeletal injuries in other parts of your body that are forced into a compromised position, such as your neck and shoulders (Pg. 2).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to have modified the method of Gao such that the subject person is in a backward-bending posture in which the subject person is bent backward, in order to determine the severity of the user’s swayback posture. Determining if the user has this posture can help in determining necessary treatment, which can mitigate the possible effects of developing back, hip, neck, and shoulder injuries, as taught by Yetman (pg. 2). It is noted that Gao is directed towards a method of determining angles that define an unhealthy posture, defined by angles in a side view. The combination of Gao and Yetman determine angles in a side view that define an unhealthy posture, wherein the unhealthy posture comprises backward bending. Therefore, if the subject person has a swayback posture, they would be standing in a backward-bending posture. Further, swayback is defined by the angle of the upper back (i.e., upper chest bending angle), the tilt of the hips and pelvis (i.e., waist angle),and a compensating neck angle (i.e., head angle) and therefore the method of Gao would be obvious to use to determine a swayback posture and the severity of the posture.
Regarding claim 10, Gao in view of Yetman teaches the posture evaluation method according to claim 9, wherein the body information includes an image of a side surface of the body of the subject person being captured in the backward-bending posture or information extracted from the image (Gao, see the rejection of claim 2).
Regarding claim 11, Gao in view of Yetman teaches the posture evaluation method according to claim 9, wherein the body information includes information indicating a position of the head relative to the trunk in the body of the subject person in the backward-bending posture (See the rejection of claim 3), and the feature includes a feature of the position of the head relative to the trunk (See the rejection of claim 3).
Regarding claim 12, Gao in view of Yetman teaches the posture evaluation method according to claim 9, wherein the body information includes first position information indicating positions of at least a cervical vertebrae, hip joints, eyes, and ears of the subject person in the backward-bending posture (See the rejection of claim 4), and the calculating includes calculating an inclination of the trunk and an inclination of the head (See the rejection of claim 4), based on the first position information (See the rejection of claim 4), and calculating the feature including at least the feature of the inclination of the head relative to the trunk by using the calculated inclination of the trunk and the calculated inclination of the head (See the rejection of claim 4).
Regarding claim 13, Gao in view of Yetman teaches the posture evaluation method according to claim 11, wherein the body information includes first position information indicating positions of at least a cervical vertebrae, hip joints, eyes, and ears of the subject person in the backward-bending posture (See the rejection of claim 5), and the calculating includes calculating an inclination of the trunk, an inclination of the head, and a position of the head relative to the trunk (See the rejection of claim 5), based on the first position information (See the rejection of claim 5), and calculating a feature indicating at least the inclination and a position of the head relative to the trunk by using the calculated inclination of the trunk, the calculated inclination of the head, and the calculated position of the head relative to the trunk (See the rejection of claim 5).
Regarding claim 14, Gao in view of Yetman teaches the posture evaluation method according to claim 9, wherein the body information includes information indicating an edge on an anterior surface side of the subject person in the backward-bending posture (See the rejection of claim 6), and the calculating includes calculating at least a feature relating to a pelvis or a spine, based on the information indicating the edge on the anterior surface side (See the rejection of claim 6).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Non-Patent Literature Estimation of human body shape and posture under clothing by Wuhrer et al. (2014) teaches a method of estimating a posture of a subject by identifying landmarks of the subject and creating a 3D mesh, defining the edges of the subject.
US Patent Publication 2022/0080260 by Zhang et al. teaches a device for analyzing side images of a subject in a back bending posture and determining angles relative to the trunk of the subject.
US Patent Publication 2022/0198835 by Yamagishi et al. teaches a method for determining the posture of a user from the side view and identifying keypoints on the subject, such as the trunk, head, toes and anterior superior iliac spines.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NELSON A GLOVER whose telephone number is (571)270-0971. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 EST.
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, Jason Sims can be reached at 571-272-7540. 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.
/NELSON ALEXANDER GLOVER/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/ADAM J EISEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights