DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on applications filed in Republic of Korea on February 28, 2024, and on July 5, 2024. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the 10-2024-0028611 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Oath/Declaration
Oath/Declaration as filed on October 9, 2024 is noted by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The claim recites limitation term “a 3D pose” fifth line of the claim, but it’s not exactly clear whether the limitation term is referring to same 3D pose recited in first line of the claim, or to a different 3D pose. Therefore, Examiner suggests the limitation terms should be amended, without adding new matter, in a manner that clarifies exactly what the limitation term is referring to. In addition, limitation terms “limb heatmaps”, “joint heatmaps”, “heatmap estimator”, “joint feature vector”, and “a skeletal tree hierarchical structure” recited in ninth thru fourteenth lines of the claim, render the claim indefinite, because the meaning of the coined terms “limb heat maps”, “joint heatmaps”, “heatmap estimator”, “joint feature vector”, and “skeletal tree hierarchical structure” are not apparent in light of the specification. See MPEP § 2173.05(a). Examiner recommends applicant amend the claim, without adding new matter, to positively recite in definite terms more clearly what “limb heatmaps”, “joint heatmaps”, “heatmap estimator”, “joint feature vector”, and “a skeletal tree hierarchical structure” actually are. Still in addition the claim recites limitation “generated based on the joint feature vector and the limb heatmaps” in thirteenth line of the claim, but the limitation is indefinite, because it is unclear as to what exactly is generated based on the joint feature vector and the limb heatmaps. Accordingly, any claims dependent on claim 1 are objected to based on same above reasoning.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The claim recites limitation term “limb heatmaps” third line of the claim, but it’s not exactly clear whether the limitation term is referring to same limb heatmaps recited in ninth line of claim 1, or to different limb heatmaps. Therefore, Examiner suggests the limitation terms should be amended, without adding new matter, in a manner that clarifies exactly what the limitation terms is referring to. Accordingly, any claims dependent on claim 3 are objected to based on same above reasoning.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The claim recites limitation term “a 3D pose” second line of the claim, but it’s not exactly clear whether the limitation term is referring to same 3D pose recited in first line of the claim, or to a different 3D pose. Therefore, Examiner suggests the limitation terms should be amended, without adding new matter, in a manner that clarifies exactly what the limitation term is referring to. In addition, limitation terms “limb heatmaps”, “joint heatmaps”, “heatmap estimator”, “joint feature vector”, and “skeletal tree hierarchical structure” recited in fifth thru tenth lines of the claim, renders the claim indefinite, because the meaning of the coined terms “limb heat maps”, “joint heatmaps”, “heatmap estimator”, “joint feature vector”, and “skeletal tree hierarchical structure” are not apparent in light of the specification. See MPEP § 2173.05(a). Examiner recommends applicant amend the claim, without adding new matter, to positively recite in definite terms more clearly what “limb heatmaps”, “joint heatmaps”, “heatmap estimator”, “joint feature vector”, and “a skeletal tree hierarchical structure” actually are. Still in addition the claim recites limitation “generated based on the joint feature vector and the limb heatmaps” in ninth line of the claim, but the limitation is indefinite, because it is unclear as to what exactly is generated based on the joint feature vector and the limb heatmaps. Accordingly, any claims dependent on claim 5 are objected to based on same above reasoning.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The claim recites limitation term “limb heatmaps” third line of the claim, but it’s not exactly clear whether the limitation term is referring to same limb heatmaps recited in fifth line of claim 5, or to different limb heatmaps. Therefore, Examiner suggests the limitation terms should be amended, without adding new matter, in a manner that clarifies exactly what the limitation terms is referring to. Accordingly, any claims dependent on claim 7 are objected to based on same above reasoning.
Claims 9 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In addition, claims 9 and 10 each depend on an independent method claim, and claims an apparatus for executing the method. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph (See MPEP § 2173.05(p)). Therefore, Examiner suggests the limitations of the claims including preamble should be amended, without adding new matter, in a manner that resolves the indefiniteness.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. In particular, claim 1 recites limitation term “the control unit” in eighth line of the claim, but the limitation term is unclear at least because there is insufficient antecedent basis for the above limitation term in the claim given that the claim uses the limitation term for a first time without previously reciting the limitation term in the claim, which even further creates lack of clarity in regard to exactly what the limitation term is referring to. Therefore, Examiner suggests the limitations should be amended, without adding new matter, in a manner that resolves the antecedent basis issues. Accordingly, any claims dependent on claim 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, based on same above reasoning.
Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome applicable rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ) 2nd paragraph, if any, and objection(s) indicated above, because for each of the claims the prior art references of record do not teach the combination of all element limitations as presently claimed. For example, in regard to claim 1, the prior art of record at least does not expressly teach concept of extracts a joint feature vector by inputting the joint heatmaps to a grid heatmap encoder; outputs a propagation feature vector by propagating a relational feature vector between neighboring joints, generated based on the joint feature vector and the limb heatmaps, through a propagation network having a skeletal tree hierarchical structure; and predicts the user's 3D pose based on the propagation feature vector and the joint feature vector. For example, in regard to claim 5, the prior art of record at least does not expressly teach concept of extracting a joint feature vector by inputting the joint heatmaps to a grid heatmap encoder; outputting a propagation feature vector by propagating a relational feature vector between neighboring joints, generated based on the joint feature vector and the limb heatmaps, through a propagation network having a skeletal tree hierarchical structure; and predicting the user's 3D pose based on the propagation feature vector and the joint feature vector. In addition, claims 2-4 and 6-10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome applicable rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ) 2nd paragraph, if any, and objection(s) indicated above because for each of claims 2-4 and 6-10, at least in light of their dependency on their respective independent claim, the prior art references of record do not teach the combination of all element limitations as presently claimed.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure and include the following:
Lin et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0180942 A1 (hereinafter Lin) teaches a method, computer readable storage medium, and computer system for estimating three-dimensional (3D) hand poses in images by receiving data corresponding to a hand image, generating a depth map corresponding to the received hand image data, and estimating a hand pose from the received hand image data and the generated depth map.
Narapureddy et al., U.S. Patent 11,625,838 B1 (hereinafter Narapureddy) teaches a device for articulated three-dimensional pose tracking
Nakamura et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2024/0303859 A1 (hereinafter Lin) teaches a method and device for three-dimensional position acquisition of a target through motion capture using a plurality of cameras.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDUL-SAMAD A ADEDIRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3128. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday, 8:00 am to 5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amr Awad can be reached on 571-272-7764. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ABDUL-SAMAD A ADEDIRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621
Prosecution Insights