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 § 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 1-3, 5-7, 10-11, 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huang (CN110755798A).
Regarding claim 1, Huang teaches a jump counting method, comprising: during a jump process of a detected object, determining a height relationship between a maximum height of a target part of the detected object measured when the detected object jumps up (met by obtained jumping height (355)) and a height of a jump reference line (met by set skip height (147)), (height relationship met by jump number (146) is the number of times the user jumps above the height threshold (thereby comparing the jump height to the reference line)) wherein a height of the target part of the detected object measured when the detected object stands is lower than the height of the jump reference line; and counting the number of jumps of the detected object, based on the height relationship (met by setting a height threshold (147), aka the set skip height); further met by the effective jump number (146) is the number of times the user jumps above the height threshold; further met by the height threshold (147) may be set to 5cm). This is read in (Page 5, Paragraph 2-3).
PNG
media_image1.png
126
1055
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
118
1064
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The height threshold (147) may functionally fill the role of a jump reference height. The user may set the height threshold to 5cm, but the height may be set to a larger value. The prior art thus enables the features of the claimed invention pertaining to wherein a height of the target part of the detected object measured when the detected object stands is lower than the height of the jump reference line. This is because it is possible to read the obtained jumping height (355) as a maximum height of a target, the initial height (351) as a height of the target part of the detected object measured when the detected object stands, and the set skip height (147) as the height of the jump reference line. These values are used to compute a number of times the user jumps based on a relationship between said heights.
Regarding claim 2, Huang as read in the analysis of claim 1, incorporated herein, meets wherein counting the number of jumps of the detected object based on the height relationship comprises: in response to determining, based on the height relationship, that the maximum height is higher than or equal to the height of the jump reference line, increasing the number of jumps of the detected object; or in response to determining, based on the height relationship, that the maximum height is lower than the height of the jump reference line, keeping the number of jumps of the detected object unchanged. Because of the prior art’s ability to determine a jump based on the relationship between heights and whether the subject jumps beyond a threshold, the limitations introduced in claim 2 are met by the same reading (Page 5, Paragraph 3).
Regarding claim 3, Huang as read in the analysis of claim 1, incorporated herein, meets, in response to determining, based on the height relationship, that the maximum height is higher than or equal to the height of the jump reference line, determining a height difference between the maximum height and the height of the jump reference line (met by the prior art’s ability to determine the relationship between these two heights as previously taught). Huang further teaches determining a first counting value based on the height difference, wherein the first counting value is greater than or equal to 1; and increasing the number of jumps of the detected object based on the first counting value (met by if the skipping rope movement counting application (12) determines that the skipping height (355) is higher than the set height threshold, the skipping rope movement counting application (12) adds one to the skipping times (143)). This is read in (Page 5, Paragraph 4).
PNG
media_image3.png
209
1055
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Huang further teaches, in response to determining, based on the height relationship, that the maximum height is higher than or equal to the height of the jump reference line, determining a hand rotation number (met by when the rotating shaft rotates once the first controller correspondingly generates a first signal); determining a third counting value based on the hand rotation number, wherein the third counting value is greater than or equal to 1; and increasing the number of jumps of the detected object based on the third counting value (met by when the electronic device receives the first signal, the rope skipping motion counting application program adds one to the skipping times). This is read in (Claim 1, Paragraph 6).
PNG
media_image4.png
187
1073
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Huang meets determining a counting state of a detection lock based on the height relationship, wherein the counting state of the detection lock comprises an open state or a closed state; in response to the counting state of the detection lock being the open state, counting the number of jumps of the detected object; or in response to the counting state of the detection lock being the closed state, keeping the number of jumps of the detected object unchanged. This is met by the prior art’s ability to change or not change the effective jumping number (146) based on the measured jumping height versus and other characteristics as taught in the analysis of claims 1 and 4, both of which are incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 7, the analysis of claim 6, incorporated herein, illustrates the prior art’s ability to change or not change the effective jumping number (146) based on the relationship between max jump height and reference jump height.
Regarding claim 10, Huang further teaches capturing a video stream of the detected object through a camera, during the jump process of the detected object; and determining, based on the video stream, the height relationship between the maximum height of the target part of the detected object measured when the detected object jumps up and the height of the jump reference line. This is enabled by the prior art’s potential configuration as an image distance measuring device. Such a device is implicitly capable of receiving a video stream, which is a series of image frames. This is read in (Claim 6).
PNG
media_image5.png
80
1070
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, the aspect of the claim wherein a to-be-counted image is obtained is met by the prior art’s ability to receive images as taught in the analysis of claim 10, incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 14, Huang as read in the analysis of claim 1, incorporated herein, in (Page 5, Paragraph 2-3) meets displaying the jump reference line in a target area, so that the detected object jumps based on the jump reference line, wherein the target area is an area to which the detected object faces (met by displays a valid number of skips (146) and a set skip height (147)).
PNG
media_image6.png
117
1064
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, Huang as read in the analysis of claim 1, incorporated herein, in (Page 5, Paragraph 2-3) meets generating first prompt information based on the number of jumps of the detected object, wherein the first prompt information comprises the number of jumps of the detected object; and displaying the first prompt information in the target area (met by displaying a valid number of skips (146)).
Regarding claim 16, determining a changing situation of the number of jumps of the detected object within a counting time, during the jump process of the detected object; in response to determining, based on the changing situation, that the number of jumps of the detected object is kept unchanged, generating second prompt information, wherein the second prompt information is configured to prompt failure of the jump; and displaying the second prompt information in the target area (met by if the user’s effective number of jumps (146) can exceed the target number (145) within the challenge time motion counting application (12) generates a target challenge success message (161) to be displayed on the user interface (120), otherwise generates a target challenge failure message (163) to be displayed on the user interface (120)). This is read in (Page 5, Paragraph 5).
PNG
media_image7.png
117
1073
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17, the analysis of claim 16, incorporated herein, meets acquiring a jump state of the detected object during the jump process of the detected object (met by detecting effective number of jumps); generating interactive information based on the jump state (met by generating a target challenge success message (161)); and displaying the interactive information in the target area (met by displaying messages (161, 163) on the user interface (120)).
Regarding claim 18, the claim is substantially identical to claim 1, the analysis of which is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 19, the claim is substantially identical to claim 2, the analysis of which is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 20, the claim is substantially identical to claim 1 with elements of claim 2 incorporated as well. Therefore, the analyses of claims 1 and 2 are incorporated herein.
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Germiquet et al. (JP6550447B2, hereinafter referred to as Germiquet).
Regarding claim 4, Huang fails to teach in response to determining, based on the height relationship, that the maximum height is higher than or equal to the height of the jump reference line, determining a duration during which the maximum height is higher than or equal to the height of the jump reference line; determining a second counting value based on the duration, wherein the second counting value is greater than or equal to 1; and increasing the number of jumps of the detected object based on the second counting value. However, Germiquet amends this deficiency.
Germiquet teaches detecting and calculating the duration of a jump based on a step exceeding a first threshold height, further teaching detecting a jump phase by detecting acceleration for a duration exceeding a first threshold duration in a time window. This is read in (Page 2, Paragraph 6). These features enable the limitations of claim 4 in combination with Huang’s ability to detect a jump exceeding a threshold height.
PNG
media_image8.png
147
1050
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Claims 8-9, 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Sun et al. (CN110909571A, hereinafter referred to as Sun).
Regarding claim 8, Huang fails to teach, during the jump process of the detected object, performing face detection on the detected object, and obtaining a face of the detected object from the face detection; determining an upper edge of the face as the target part of the detected object; and determining the height relationship between the maximum height of the target part of the detected object measured when the detected object jumps up and the height of the jump reference line. However, Sun amends this deficiency.
Sun teaches detecting a face, including detecting the position of the face and detecting key points of the face. This enables the prior art to provide the features of claim 8. Being able to detect a face, its position, and key points of the face, in combination with the previously taught features of Huang, allows one of ordinary skill to provide the same intended functionality as the claimed invention. This is read in (Page 3, Paragraph 11-13).
PNG
media_image9.png
142
987
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Huang to incorporate the teachings of Sun in order to provide a high-precision face recognition space positioning method (Abstract).
Regarding claim 9, Sun further teaches capturing a target image comprising the detected object through a camera, during the jump process of the detected object (met by acquiring a color picture of the human face by using a common optical camera); and inputting the target image into a face detection model, and obtaining the face of the detected object in the target image output by the face detection model (met by the analysis of claim 8, incorporated herein). This is read in (Page 3, Paragraph 4).
PNG
media_image10.png
50
1058
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, Sun as read in the rejections of claims 8 and 9, incorporated herein respectively, in (Page 3 Paragraph 4, 11-13) meets acquiring a shooting range of a camera; determining the height of the jump reference line, based on a preset graphic proportion and the shooting range (met by detecting the position of the face and the depth camera). Further, see (Page 3, Paragraph 2), emphasizing the depth camera’s ability to obtain spatial coordinates of the face in the (x, y, z) axes. These features enable acquiring a shooting range via the depth and 3-dimensional coordinates of a detected face as well as acquiring the height of the jump reference line based on a preset graphic proportion via the same mechanisms.
PNG
media_image11.png
78
1064
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Tamoto et al. (US20040096084A1, hereinafter referred to as Tamoto).
Regarding claim 12, Huang fails to teach acquiring an initial position of the detected object in the to-be-counted image; acquiring, during the jump process of the detected object, a current position of the detected object in a current to-be-counted image; and in response to a distance between the current position and the initial position being greater than a distance threshold, rotating a direction of the camera, so as to make the distance between the current position and the initial position less than or equal to the distance threshold. However, Tamoto amends this deficiency.
Tamoto teaches automatically recognizing reference points on a screen (image). In response, Tamoto calculates orientation parameters based on initially set reference points and automatically rotates surveillance camera (3) to the preset position. Tamoto is then capable of image processing based on the reference points recognized in the screen and automatically calculating orientation parameters. While the example described in Tamoto is a case wherein the camera cannot be physically adjusted to correct for a small error of 0.5 degrees and instead corrects this orientation digitally view image rotation, it is clearly implied by the embodiment that such adjustment of camera rotation would be possible in other cases so as to adjust camera orientation appropriately. This is read in (Paragraph [0068]).
PNG
media_image12.png
440
513
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Huang to incorporate the teachings of Tamoto in order to provide an image processing system to detect the position
and speed of a vehicle with high accuracy (Abstract).
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW JAMES BODNARK whose telephone number is (703)756-5378. The examiner can normally be reached 8a-5p.
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, Vu Le can be reached at (571) 272-7332. 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.
/MATTHEW JAMES BODNARK/Examiner, Art Unit 2668
/VU LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2668
Prosecution Insights