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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10/11/2024, 12/31/2024, and 06/26/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 4-5 and 5 recite “the obtained optical image” which Examiner suggests amending to “the optical image” (deleting “obtained”) in order to provide consistency with the rest of the claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 3 recites “and probability” which Examiner suggests amending to “and a probability”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 5-6 recite “based on positional relationship” which Examiner suggests amending to “based on a positional relationship”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 2 recites “configured to determines” and “based on arrangement” which Examiner suggests amending to “configured to determine” and “based on an arrangement”, respectively. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 4-5 recites “toes, and the front and back of hand, and the front and back of feet” which Examiner suggests amending to “toes, the front and back of a hand, and the front and back of feet” (deleting “and” after “toes,”). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 4 and 5 recite “the obtained optical image” which Examiner suggests amending to “the optical image” (deleting “obtained”) in order to provide consistency with the rest of the claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
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. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not 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.
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder 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 limitation(s) is/are: “obtaining unit”, “estimating unit”, determining unit”, “judging unit, “display controlling unit”, and “annotation unit” in claims 1-9 and 12-18.
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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 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 § 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.
Claims 9, 10, and 12-14 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the object" in Line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as it is unclear as to which object is being referred to, the object in the optical image in Lines 4-5 of claim 1 or the object in Line 8 of claim 1. Examiner suggests amending to “the object in the optical image” and has interpreted the limitation as such.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the number of training data" in Line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as there is no earlier mention of a number of training data. Examiner suggests amending to “a number of training data” and has interpreted the limitations as such.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the consistent" in Line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as there is no earlier mention of a consistent or consistency. Examiner suggests amending to “a consistency” and has interpreted the limitation as such..
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the judgement result" in Line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as there is no earlier mention of a judgment result. Examiner suggests amending to “a judgement result” and has interpreted the limitation as such.
Claim 14 depends on claim 12 and thus is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8, and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US 2020/0205766) in view of Guay et al. (US 2022/0392099).
With regards to claim 1, Wu et al. discloses an information processing apparatus comprising:
an obtaining unit (Para. 0059 lines 1-14, 0063 lines 1-8, 0064 lines 1-26, "CPU") configured to obtain an optical image obtained by imaging an object in an imaging scene of a radiation image (Para. 0052 lines 1-11, "image information" "visible light images");
an estimating unit (Para. 0059 lines 1-14, 0063 lines 1-8, 0064 lines 1-26, "CPU") configured to estimate skeletal information of the object in the obtained optical image by using the obtained optical image as input data of a second learned model, the second learned model obtained by performing learning on a first model that estimates skeletal information relating to a skeletal structure of an object (Para. 0059 lines 1-10, 0079 lines 1-3, 0117 lines 1-4, 0118 lines 1-5, 0119 lines 1-7, 0126 lines 1-12, 0158 lines 1-3, 0164 lines 1-4, "training" "human skeleton information" "image information"); and
a determining unit (Para. 0059 lines 1-14, 0063 lines 1-8, 0064 lines 1-26, "CPU") configured to determine object information which includes information of at least one of laterality and a site of the object in the optical image by using the skeletal information of the object in the optical image (Para. 0073 lines 1-6, 0082 lines 1-4, 0132 lines 1-4, 0133 lines 1-15, 0137 lines 1-15, 0138 lines 5-14, 0145 lines 1-18, 0146 lines 1-8, 0147 lines 9-19, "location" "head" "posture").
Wu et al. does not explicitly teach the second learned model obtained by performing incremental learning on a first learned model, the incremental learning performed by using skeletal information relating to a skeletal structure different from a skeletal structure indicated by skeletal information learned by the first learned model.
However, Guay et al. discloses the concept of obtaining a first learned model and performing incremental learning on the first learned model to obtain the second learned model, the incremental learning performed using skeletal information relating to a skeletal structure different from a skeletal structure indicated by skeletal information learned by the first learned model (Para. 0028 lines 1-5, 0067 lines 1-7 and 18-21, 0071 lines 1-11, 0089 lines 1-15, "pretraining" "gradient descent" "second training") in order to obtain a more effective second learned model.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the concept of obtaining a first learned model and performing incremental learning on the first learned model to obtain the second learned model, the incremental learning performed using skeletal information relating to a skeletal structure different from a skeletal structure indicated by skeletal information learned by the first learned model as taught by Guay et al. into the information processing apparatus of Wu et al. The motivation for this would be to obtain a more effective second learned model.
With regards to claim 2, the combination of Wu et al. and Guay et al. discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the determining unit is configured to determine the object information by rule-based processing (Wu et al.: Para. 0145 lines 1-18, 0146 lines 1-8, "location" "head").
With regards to claim 3, the combination of Wu et al. and Guay et al. discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the estimating unit is configured to estimate coordinates of a plurality of feature points of the object in the optical image and probability that the plurality of feature points correspond to a predefined feature point of an object as the skeletal information of the object in the optical image (Wu et al.: Para. 0126 lines 1-12, 0129 lines 1-14, "probability" "mark points").
With regards to claim 4, the combination of Wu et al. and Guay et al. discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the determining unit is configured to select a feature point of the object in the optical image by using a threshold value with respect to the probability estimated by the estimating unit, and determine the object information by using the selected feature point (Wu et al.: Para. 0126 lines 1-12, 0129 lines 1-14, 0145 lines 1-18, 0146 lines 1-8, "preset range" "location").
With regards to claim 8, the combination of Wu et al. and Guay et al. discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the estimating unit is configured to extract an object region in the optical image, and estimate the skeletal information of the object in the optical image by using the object region in the optical image as the input data of the second learned model (Wu et al.: Para. 0079 lines 1-3, 0117 lines 1-4, 0118 lines 1-5, 0119 lines 1-7, 0126 lines 1-12, 0158 lines 1-3, 0164 lines 1-4, "training" "human skeleton information" "image information").
With regards to claim 11, the combination of Wu et al. and Guay et al. discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the second learned model is a learned model obtained by performing incremental learning on the first learned model by using skeletal information for at least one feature point of left and right elbow joints, wrists, fingers, knee joints, ankles, toes, and the front and back of hand, and the front and back of feet (Wu et al.: Para. 0119 lines 1-7, see also Guay et al.: Para. 0028 lines 1-5, 0067 lines 1-7 and 18-21, 0071 lines 1-11, 0089 lines 1-15, "pretraining" "gradient descent" "second training").
With regards to claim 12, the combination of Wu et al. and Guay et al. discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a judging unit configured to determine the consistent between the object information and information included in an imaging order of the radiation image (Wu et al.: Para. 0145 lines 1-18, 0146 lines 1-8, 0155 lines 1-6, "preset condition").
With regards to claim 13, the combination of Wu et al. and Guay et al. discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 12, further comprising a display controlling unit configured to cause a display unit to display at least one of the optical image, the skeletal information of the object in the optical image, an object region in the optical image, the object information, and the judgement result by the judging unit (Wu et al.: Para. 0156 lines 1-11, "display").
With regards to claim 14, the combination of Wu et al. and Guay et al. discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 12, further comprising a display controlling unit configured to cause a display unit to display a warning if the judging unit outputs a judgement result indicating that the consistency is not ensured (Wu et al.: Para. 0156 lines 1-11, "does not satisfy the preset condition" "prompting" "display").
With regards to claim 15, the combination of Wu et al. and Guay et al. discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising an annotation unit configured to arrange the object information in the optical image or the radiation image as annotation information (Wu et al.: Para. 0154 lines 1-11, "location" "positive samples").
With regards to claim 16, the combination of Wu et al. and Guay et al. discloses the information processing apparatus of claim 15, further comprising a display controlling unit configured to cause a display unit to display at least one of the optical image, the skeletal information of the object in the optical image, an object region in the optical image, the object information, the annotation information, and an optical image or a radiation image in which the annotation information is arranged (Wu et al.: Para. 0138 lines 5-14, 0147 lines 9-16, Fig. 16-19, "display the skeleton map").
With regards to claim 17, the combination of Wu et al. and Guay et al. discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the determining unit is configured to adjust parameters of the rule-based processing based on the skeletal information of the object in the optical image, skeletal information obtained by using an optical image obtained by imaging a phantom, or skeletal information obtained by projecting three-dimensional coordinates of virtual object data generated by a three-dimensional modeling tool on two-dimensional image coordinates, and object information obtained via an operation unit (Wu et al.: Para. 0145 lines 1-18, 0146 lines 1-8, "location" "head" "preset range").
With regards to claim 18, the combination of Wu et al. and Guay et al. discloses a radiation imaging system comprising:
an optical apparatus arranged to imaging an optical image of an object (Wu et al.: Para. 0052 lines 1-11, "acquire image information" "visible light images" "visible light camera");
a radiation detector arranged to perform radiation imaging of the object (Wu et al.: Para. 0047 lines 1-12, 0048 lines 1-7, 0049 lines 1-9, 0052 lines 6-8, "radiation device"); and
the information processing apparatus according to claim 1 (See claim 1 rejection above).
With regards to claim 19, it recites the functions of the apparatus of claim 1 as a process. Thus, the analysis in rejecting claim 1 is equally applicable to claim 19.
With regards to claim 20, the combination of Wu et al. and Guay et al. discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon a program that, when executed by a computer, causes the computer to execute the information processing method according to claim 19 (Wu et al.: Para. 0059 lines 1-14, 0061 lines 1-2 and 6-9, 0063 lines 1-8, 0064 lines 1-26, "storage device" "CPU", See claim 19 rejection above).
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US 2020/0205766) in view of Guay et al. (US 2022/0392099) and further in view of Yamashita et al. (US 2022/0027726).
With regards to claim 10, the combination of Wu et al. and Guay et al. discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the second learned model is a learned model obtained by performing incremental learning using training data (Guay et al.: Para. 0028 lines 1-5, 0067 lines 1-7 and 18-21, 0071 lines 1-11, 0089 lines 1-15, "second training").
The combination of Wu et al. and Guay et al. does not explicitly teach the second learned model using training data less than the number of training data of the first learned model.
However, Yamashita et al. discloses the concept of obtaining a first learned model using training data and then performing learning on the first learned model to obtain the second learned model using a smaller number of training data in order to generate a more accurate learned model while avoiding overfitting (Para. 0060 lines 7-15, "large amount" "small amount" "high accuracy").
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the concept of a second learned model using training data less than a number of training data of a first learned model as taught by Yamashita et al. into the information processing apparatus of the combination of Wu et al. and Guay et al. The motivation for this would be to generate a more accurate model while avoiding overfitting.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7 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.
With regards to claim 5, Wu et al. (US 2020/0205766) discloses determining a preset location as an irradiation region to which radiation is irradiated and determining the object information. However, there is no mention of selecting a feature point of the object in the optical image based on a positional relationship between coordinates estimated of a plurality of feature points of the object in the optical image and the irradiation region and then determining the object information by using the selected feature point.
With regards to claims 6 and 7, they are dependent on claim 5.
Claim 9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
With regards to claim 9, Wu et al. (US 2020/0205766) discloses identifying skeletal information, however, there is no mention of classifying the optical image into a class indicating that a whole body of the object appears, a class indicating that a head appears, a class indicating that a hand appears, or a class indicating that a foot appears, and selecting and using the second learned model corresponding to the classified class.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Applicants are directed to consider additional pertinent prior art included on the Notice of References Cited (PTOL 892) attached herewith.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAROL W CHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5766. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-3:30 M-F.
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, Sumati Lefkowitz can be reached at (571) 272-3638. 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.
/CAROL W CHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2672
Prosecution Insights