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 .
Response to Amendment
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(s) 1, 5, 8, 9, 12, 13, 16, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (U.S. Patent No. 6,245,982).
Regarding claim 1:
Suzuki teaches: a model data control method (claim 1, method of creating model performance image information) comprising:
receiving first model data of a performer (e.g. claim 20, receive skeleton data (first model data) of a player/performer) and second model data of an instrument, the second model data including a plurality of pieces of bone data that correspond to a plurality of components of the instrument, respectively (claim 20, receive skeleton data indicative of the musical instrument in combination with, e.g. Fig. 2: motion components (“bone data”), or model data, of an instrument (here, example is a drum)) or Figs. 10A-10B, which show instruments and “bone data” as instrument component (example of these figures is keyboards of a piano, or drum sticks of a drum, or the violin and bow of a violin));
receiving, as calibration data, data of a length of one of the components of the instrument (see e.g. C4, L31-36, “the image creating device creates the image to be displayed, by correcting skeleton data indicative of sizes of the player and the musical instrument contained in each of the motion components, based on information contained in the Sequence information, for designating a size of the image to be displayed.”…
Another teaching: C16, L5-9: “When the size of a player or an instrument of each part is changed, the ratio is calculated for each region Such that the Skeleton Size in the motion component is corrected to a size after the change of the size”. Here, “size” of an instrument part is data of a length of one of the components.);
receiving motion data of the performer (e.g. Figs. 7A, 7B, 7C: (7A) the motion of the body of a player except fingers, (7B) the motion of the fingers, (7C) the motion of hand-held parts or tools (drum sticks) of the instrument; another teaching: Fig. 4A, which shows the manner of acquiring information on the motion of a player/performer);
correcting each of the pieces of bone data in the second model data using the data of the length of the one of the components of the instrument as the calibration data (see mapping above in “receiving, as calibration data” step, which also teaches this step; more teaching: Fig. 12: S43);
rendering the first model data and the second model data after the correcting (Fig. 12: S45, S8; see also Fig. 10A and/or Fig. 6: 40); and
controlling the first model data using the motion data (see e.g. Fig. 11, Fig. 12: S45, S8; see also Fig. 10A and/or Fig. 6: 40).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained the above, and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
The prior art included each element recited in claim 1, although not necessarily in a single embodiment, with the only difference being between the claimed element and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of certain elements in a single prior art embodiment, as described above.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 5:
Suzuki teaches: the model data control method according to claim 17, wherein a size of the first model data or a relative positional relationship between the first model data and the second model data is further corrected based on the data related of the size of the performer or the data of the length of the one of the components of the instrument as the calibration data (see e.g. claim 20, 21, and/or Figs. 10A-12).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of Applicant’s claims, to have further modified the applied reference(-s) in view of same to have obtained the above, motivated to dynamically maintain more accurate or desirable final images.
Regarding claim 8:
Suzuki teaches: the model data control method according to claim 1, further comprising controlling the second model data using the motion data, the motion data including data detected with a motion sensor configured to detect a position or orientation of the instrument (Figs. 4A-4B, 3D digitizers (motion sensors) can be used to record or sense motion of a musical instrument. In Fig. 4B, the 3D digitizers/sensors are mounted on certain positions of the cymbal (instrument). See also Figs. 3, 12).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of Applicant’s claims, to have further modified the applied reference(-s) in view of same to have obtained the above, motivated to dynamically maintain more accurate or desirable final images based on interactive imaging data.
Regarding claim 9: see also claim 1.
Suzuki teaches: a model data control device comprising (claim 1, performance image information creating apparatus): an electronic controller including at least one processor (Fig. 1: CPU as a controller including at least one processor, which can be a processing core of a CPU), the at least one processor being configured to.
The functions of the processor correspond to the method of claim 1; the same rationale for rejection applies.
Regarding claim 13: see claim 5.
These claims are similar; the same rationale for rejection applies.
Regarding claim 16: see claim 8.
These claims are similar; the same rationale for rejection applies.
Regarding claim 17:
Suzuki teaches: the model data control method according to claim 1, further comprising receiving data of a size of the performer as the calibration data, and correcting the first model data using the data of the size of the performer (see e.g. C4, L31-36, “the image creating device creates the image to be displayed, by correcting skeleton data indicative of sizes of the player and the musical instrument contained in each of the motion components, based on information contained in the Sequence information, for designating a size of the image to be displayed.”…).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of Applicant’s claims, to have further modified the applied reference(-s) in view of same to have obtained the above, motivated to dynamically maintain more accurate or desirable final images.
Regarding claim 18: see claim 17.
These claims are similar; the same rationale for rejection applies.
Claim(s) 2, 3, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Murali (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2019/0347357 A1).
Regarding claim 2:
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined and modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained: the model data control method according to claim 1, wherein information pertaining to a product name of the instrument is received, and
the data of the length of the one of the components are the calibration data are determined based on the information pertaining to the product name, and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
Murali teaches systems/methods that, “enable a user to access content, such as, for example and without limitation, metadata and/or audio (e.g., musical or non-musical) content or other content, based on an image… The captured image may include content such as, for example and without limitation… musical instruments, merchandise such as a T-shirt, a logo, art, poster, or an individual or group of individuals such as musical artists, etc.” (quoting para. 22, see also para. 24-28). Murali also teaches that based on image recognition, such as of a musical instrument, additional information from a database can be retrieved, that stores associated data with what was recognized in the image (i.e. the recognized musical instrument). Id. Likewise, Suzuki also teaches obtaining “actual image(-s)” from the scene for input purpose (see C15, last partial paragraph).
Modifying the applied references, such to use the teachings of Murali, such that the images of Murali correspond to Applicant’s claimed “information pertaining to a product name of the instrument is deceived” (the information can be the images themselves, and/or the instruments or logos found in said images, such as logos or brands associated with musical instruments), and the data related to the length , per Suzuki, is determined based on image recognition per Murali, is all of taught/suggested by the prior art, and would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill. (See also Suzuki, Fig. 3, Fig. 12, and mapping to claim 1 above).
The prior art included each element recited in claim 2, although not necessarily in a single embodiment, with the only difference being between the claimed element and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of certain elements in a single prior art embodiment, as described above.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 3:
Murali teaches: the model data control method according to claim 2, wherein image data obtained by photographing the instrument are received (Murali, paras. 22-28), and
the information pertaining to the product name is determined based on the image data (Murali, paras. 22-28, recognize the instrument and/or logo of instrument, based on image data).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of Applicant’s claims, to have further modified the applied reference(-s) in view of same to have obtained the above, motivated to dynamically maintain more accurate or desirable final results from intermediate images.
Regarding claim 10: see claim 2.
These claims are similar; the same rationale for rejection applies.
Regarding claim 11: see claim 3.
These claims are similar; the same rationale for rejection applies.
Claim(s) 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Visser (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2013/0272548).
Regarding claim 6:
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined and modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained: the model data control method according to claim 1, further comprising estimating a sound emission position and a sound emission direction of the instrument based on the second model data,
receiving a performance sound of the instrument, and
carrying out sound signal processing on the performance sound based on the sound emission position and the sound emission direction that have been estimated, and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
Visser teaches an “audio analysis block”, that can estimate a “direction of arrival (DOA)” of an audio or sound source (see para. 71, which further states that, ” The DOA of a source can be estimated using the audio DOA estimation techniques described herein below, and the range of a sound source can be estimated using the range finding techniques described herein below with reference to FIGS. 18-29.” See also Fig. 2: 61: Determine sound source location based on DOA estimation, and paras. 72-73). This corresponds to a teaching of the above estimating step (a DOA, or direction of arrival of a sound source, has both a position and a direction).
Regarding receiving a performance sound of the instrument, see Visser, Fig. 2: 62, Provide probable instrument type based on sound analysis. The sound analysis is done based on a sound source from the scene, or a “performance sound” of the instrument. See paras. 71-73.
Regarding, the carrying out signal processing step, see Visser, Fig. 2: 54, 56, Image/Video Processing, and Audio processing, which include multiple sub-steps, such as instrument recognition based on SIFT processing, and decomposition of acoustic scene using spatial filters, to list two examples Either one of these two blocks (54, 56) and/or both, teach signal processing on the performance sound based on the estimated position and direction (i.e. the estimated DOA of Visser).
Modifying the applied references, in view of Visser, to have included the above, and to base the estimated DOA of sound, from an instrument based on the second model data of Suzuki, as mapped in claim 1, is all of taught and suggested by Visser, and would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill, further motivated to better analyze sound and instrumental acoustic properties of a scene.
The prior art included each element recited in claim 6, although not necessarily in a single embodiment, with the only difference being between the claimed element and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of certain elements in a single prior art embodiment, as described above.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 14: see claim 6.
These claims are similar; the same rationale for rejection applies.
Claim(s) 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Visser, with or without Alexandridis (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2015/0156578 A1).
Regarding claim 7:
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined and modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained: the model data control method according to claim 6, wherein the sound signal processing includes a localization process for localizing the performance sound at the sound emission position that has been estimated, and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
Visser, at Fig. 2: 54, shows localization subblocks 66, 68, 70 to localize the sound based on the estimated DOA (direction of arrival). Visser has other teaching examples of localization, at paras. 113, 193-95, 203-07, and Figs. 20-21. Likewise, in the interest of compact prosecution, Alexandridis also teaches localization as part of sound signal processing, based on an estimated sound DOA (see e.g. claim 1, a method for spatial sound localization, which includes determining DOA estimates, and further steps of localization based on said estimates. See also Alexandridis, claim 7, the functional features of the “sound source localizer” and Fig. 3B.
Modifying the applied references, in view of same, such to include localization as party of sound signal processing, to refine an initial estimate, is all of taught and suggested by the prior art, and would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A). Further motivation would be to make use of know processing to refine data results or estimates.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 15: see claim 7.
These claims are similar; the same rationale for rejection applies.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 12 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art does not disclose, and would not have rendered obvious, the following features of claims 4 and similarly claim 12, using claim 4 as an example:
a model data control method comprising:
receiving first model data of a performer and second model data of an instrument, the second model data including a plurality of pieces of bone data that correspond to a plurality of components of the instrument, respectively;
receiving, as calibration data of a length of one of the components of the instrument;
receiving motion data of the performer;
correcting each of the plurality of pieces of bone data in the second model data, using the data of the length of the one of the components of the instrument as the calibration data;
rendering the first model data and the second model data after the correcting; and controlling the first model data using the motion data; and
receiving data of a size of the performer as the calibration data, and correcting the first model data using the data of the size of the performer,
wherein a special performance sound that is generated as the performer plays the instrument using a specific playing technique is received, and the data of the size of the performer as the calibration data are determined based on the special performance sound.
The closest prior art to the above features of claims 4 and 12 is of record in this application’s prosecution history. Of these references, the following is specifically noted:
U.S. Patent No. 6,245,982 B1 Performance image information creating and reproducing apparatus and method
The instant reference teaches creating and displaying models of both a performer and a performer’s instrument, and using size data of each to generate each model.
See, for example, Figs. 10A and 10B, reproduced below for convenience, which also illustrate movement coordinate systems for both a performer/player, and moveable components or portions of instruments being played (here, drums and a violin), whereby the description of these figures also indicate that size information of the player/performer and the instrument are taken into consideration when generation of the models occur.
PNG
media_image1.png
740
1070
media_image1.png
Greyscale
See also Fig. 10B above, which also illustrates synchronization with the image models and sounds/acoustics of the instruments being played.
However, the above reference, alone or in varied combination with remaining references of record, would not have rendered obvious a metho whereby a “special performance sound” is generated (when the player/performer is playing the instrument), and data related to a size of the player/performer is determined based on said sound, in combination with remaining features of claim 4.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
* * * * *
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sarah Lhymn whose telephone number is (571)270-0632. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM 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, Xiao Wu can be reached at 571-272-7761. 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.
Sarah Lhymn
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2613
/Sarah Lhymn/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2613
Prosecution Insights