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.
Response to Amendments and Arguments
Amendments and arguments filed on 03/17/2026 have been fully considered and are not found to place the application in a condition for allowance.
The applicant asserts that Winold does not teach the limitations of amended claim 1 and other independent claims. However, the applicant provides no reasoning as to how or why the claim limitations are distinguished from the teachings of Winold. The Office maintains that Winold teaches the claimed limitations and does not find the arguments persuasive. The following Action provides further details regarding the amended and new 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.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Winold et al., US 2022/0035443 A1, hereinafter “Winold”.
Regarding claim 1, Winold teaches an information processing device comprising circuitry configured to (¶ 14, the processor) receive an input of captured motion data that is motion data acquired with a motion capture system for a movable object (¶ 14: capturing motion information of a user using cameras and or other motion tracking systems as disclosed), and perform a motion data conversion process to obtain motion data having a larger number of pieces of part data than the captured motion data (¶ 14: “the processor receives tracking data for “n” body parts of the user, and the processor communicates for display an updated 3D model with “n+1” body parts”; also see claim 1 and ¶ 114-116), through at least one of a motion matching process based on the captured motion data or an inference process that uses an artificial intelligence model and uses the captured motion data as input data (¶ 94 and ¶ 89), wherein the artificial intelligence model is trained using the captured motion data to infer the motion data having the larger number of pieces of part data according to a relation between the movable object and one or more other objects (¶ 87-88 wherein inferring the movements of end effectors (fingers) are determined according to inverse kinematic information of tracked bones and joints data).
Regarding claim 12, Winold teaches an information processing method implemented by an information processing device (¶ 85), the information processing method comprising: receiving an input of captured motion data that is motion data acquired with a motion capture system for a movable object (¶ 14: capturing motion information of a user using cameras and or other motion tracking systems as disclosed); and performing a motion data conversion process to obtain motion data having a larger number of pieces of part data than the captured motion data (¶ 14: “the processor receives tracking data for “n” body parts of the user, and the processor communicates for display an updated 3D model with “n+1” body parts”; also see claim 1 and ¶ 114-116), through at least one of a motion matching process based on the captured motion data or an inference process that uses an artificial intelligence model and uses the captured motion data as input data (¶ 94 and ¶ 89), wherein the artificial intelligence model is trained using the captured motion data to infer the motion data having the larger number of pieces of part data according to a relation between the movable object and one or more other objects (¶ 87-88 wherein inferring the movements of end effectors (fingers) are determined according to inverse kinematic information of tracked bones and joints data).
Regarding claim 13, Winold teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having embodied thereon a program, which when executed by a computer device (¶ 85) causes the computer device to execute a method, the method comprising the method of claim 12 (see rejection of claim 12 above).
Regarding claims 2 and 14, Winold teaches that the circuitry uses attribute information about the movable object in the motion data conversion process (¶ 94, attribute information such as position, orientation, etc).
Regarding claims 3 and 15, Winold teaches that the circuitry uses static attribute information (¶ 94, a body part such as wrist is a static attribute) and dynamic attribute information as the attribute information (¶ 94, “position, orientation, directionality”, etc. are considered dynamic attribute information).
Regarding claims 4 and 16, Winold teaches that the circuitry uses, in the motion data conversion process, information indicating a positional relationship between the movable object and another object (¶ 47: “the tracking data from a nearby body part or parts may be used to determine or predict the proper movements or gestures to animate”; also see ¶ 96: “The algorithm then takes that solution and refines it according to proportionality parameters that define appropriate angle, lengths, and distance between various body parts”).
Regarding claims 5 and 17, Winold teaches that the circuitry uses, in the motion data conversion process, information indicating a positional relationship between the movable object and another capture target movable object (¶ 47: “the tracking data from a nearby body part or parts may be used to determine or predict the proper movements or gestures to animate”; also see ¶ 96: “The algorithm then takes that solution and refines it according to proportionality parameters that define appropriate angle, lengths, and distance between various body parts”).
Regarding claims 6 and 18, Winold teaches that the circuitry uses, in the motion data conversion process, information indicating a positional relationship between the movable object and another specific object (positional relationship between two specific body parts is disclosed: ¶ 47: “the tracking data from a nearby body part or parts may be used to determine or predict the proper movements or gestures to animate”; also see ¶ 96: “The algorithm then takes that solution and refines it according to proportionality parameters that define appropriate angle, lengths, and distance between various body parts”).
Regarding claims 7 and 19, Winold teaches the circuitry is further configured to adjust motion data newly obtained through the motion data conversion process, based on immediately preceding output motion data (¶ 93-95: “the algorithm is provided with information of the previously rendered body position, the series of all past body positions, and limited tracking data for the current body position”).
Regarding claim 8, Winold teaches that the circuitry adjusts motion data of a finger of the movable object newly obtained through the motion data conversion process (¶ 94: “The position of the fingers may be rendered according to matches in a library of key poses, wherein the match is based on position, orientation, directionality, and velocity of hand, metacarpus, wrist, or arm movement alone”), based on immediately preceding output motion data of the finger and a velocity of a hand of the movable object (¶ 93: “the algorithm is provided with information of the previously rendered body position, the series of all past body positions, and limited tracking data for the current body position”).
Rendering claims 9 and 20, Winold teaches that the circuitry performs the motion data conversion process through the motion matching process, and feeds back position information about tips of fingers of the movable object to an input for the motion matching process, the position information having been obtained through an immediately preceding motion data conversion process (¶ 93-95 wherein previously rendered body position (including fingers and fingertips as illustrated in fig. 6) is fed back to the system; note that each most recent frame is acquired based on immediately preceding motion data provided by “previously rendered position” information as taught in ¶ 93).
Regarding claim 11, Winold teaches that the circuitry is further configured to perform a process of causing a storage device to store converted motion data obtained through the motion data conversion process for each movable object among a plurality of the movable objects having an interactive relation in one of a real space or a virtual space (¶ 83-84 disclose different types of memory and storage devices capable of storing information such as “proportionality parameters that define appropriate angle, lengths, and distance between various body parts” (see ¶ 96). Furthermore, see “information of the previously rendered body position, the series of all past body positions, and limited tracking data for the current body position” (¶ 93) which require a storage device).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winold, in view of Holz et al., US 10/168,873 B1, hereinafter “Holz”.
Regarding claim 10, Winold does not specifically teach that the circuitry feeds back, to the input for the motion matching process, only position information about a tip of a thumb and a tip of an index finger among the position information about the tips of the fingers of the movable object obtained through the immediately preceding motion data conversion process.
Holz, however, teaches the use of only the thumb and the index finger to provide gestures in a system (col. 6, lines 14-25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Winold in view of Holz. The references teach detecting user motions and while Winold teaches that preceding motion data may include all fingers of a user (¶ 93-95 and figs. 6A-E), Holz teaches that only the index and thumb of a user may be used in order to provide a gesture input to a system. Accordingly, one would have been motivated to only provide position information regarding the index finger and the thumb of a user in order to accurately render said two fingers while reducing the processing and computations required for including the motion information of the other unused fingers.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SEPEHR AZARI whose telephone number is (571)270-7903. The examiner can normally be reached weekdays from 11AM-7PM.
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, Amr Awad can be reached at (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 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.
/SEPEHR AZARI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621
Prosecution Insights