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 .
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.
Drawings
Figures 18-27 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated (disclosed as “conventional” technology in Background paragraphs 3-35 of applicant’s specification”, filed 1/13/202) See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding claim 9, the claim is reproduced below with bracketed paragraph designators added for clarity and emphasis added to the claim language that recites an abstract idea:
9. A conversion device comprising:
[(A)] a memory; and
[(B)] a processor coupled to the memory and configured to
[(C)] acquiring skeleton information in which each of a plurality of joints included in a human body and coordinates for the plurality of joints is set, and reference posture information in which each of a plurality of joints included in a human body and reference coordinates for the plurality of joints is set;
[(D)] specifying a second joint that corresponds to a first joint set in the reference posture information from the plurality of joints set in the skeleton information;
[(E)] calculating a relative rotation angle from reference coordinates of the first joint to coordinates of the second joint; and
[(F)] converting the skeleton information into hierarchical structure data by setting the relative rotation angle to the hierarchical structure data.
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, the office is guided by the Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012), and Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 75–77). In accordance with that framework, the Office first determines what concept the claim is “directed to.” See Alice, 573 U.S. at 219 (“On their face, the claims before us are drawn to the concept of intermediated settlement, i.e., the user of a third party to mitigate settlement risk.”); see also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) (“Claims 1 and 4 in petitioners’ application explain the basic concept of hedging, or protecting against risk.”)
Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible, include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental economic practices (Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–20; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611); mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594–95 (1978)); and mental processes (Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972)). Concepts determined to patent eligible include physical and chemical processes, such as “molding rubber products” (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191 (1981)); “tanning, dyeing, making water-proof cloth, vulcanizing India rubber, smelting ores” (id. At 182 n. 7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S. 252, 267–68 (1854))); and manufacturing flour (Benson, 409 U.S. at 69 (citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))).
Step 1: The claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. § 101: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Accordingly, we turn to step 2A of the 2019 Guidance.
STEP 2A, PRONG 1: Under step 2A, prong 1, of the 2019 Guidance, we first look to whether the claim recites any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes). MPEP § 2106.04(a).
Limitation (D) recites, “specifying a second joint that corresponds to a first joint set in the reference posture information from the plurality of joints set in the skeleton information.”
The specifying of a point that has corresponding data from a set of data, as claimed, is at most merely a mental process performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion. This is merely looking at a set of data and selecting a point from that data, without more. Accordingly, the limitation is at most merely a recitation of an abstract idea. Alternatively, the courts have held that selecting a particular type of data to be manipulated is insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g) iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016))
Limitation (E) recites, “calculating a relative rotation angle from reference coordinates of the first joint to coordinates of the second joint.” The limitation is merely reciting a mathematical calculation (calculate angle using coordinate values), and nothing more. As such, the limitation at most is directed to an abstract mathematical concept.
Limitation (F) recites, “converting the skeleton information into hierarchical structure data by setting the relative rotation angle to the hierarchical structure data.” In other words, the claim merely states that the “converting” is performed by assigning the obtained mathematical result to a new form of organized data. This is similar to concepts that have been held as abstract mathematical relationships by the courts (i.e. organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations, Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The patentee in Digitech claimed methods of generating first and second data by taking existing information, manipulating the data using mathematical functions, and organizing this information into a new form. The court explained that such claims were directed to an abstract idea because they described a process of organizing information through mathematical correlations, like Flook's method of calculating using a mathematical formula. 758 F.3d at 1350, 111 USPQ2d at 1721.) As such, the limitation at most is directed to an abstract concept.
As such, the claim recites limitations directed to concepts which constitute abstract ideas and the claims need further analysis to determine if the remaining limitations render the claim eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
STEP 2A, PRONG 2: Under step 2A, prong 2, of the 2019 Guidance, we next analyze whether the claim recites additional elements that individually or in combination integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 53–55. The 2019 Guidance identifies considerations indicative of whether an additional element or combination of elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, such as an additional element reflecting an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field. Id. at 55; MPEP § 2106.05(a).
Regarding limitation (C), stating “acquiring skeleton information in which each of a plurality of joints included in a human body and coordinates for the plurality of joints is set, and reference posture information in which each of a plurality of joints included in a human body and reference coordinates for the plurality of joints is set”, this limitation is merely directed to insignificant pre-solution activity of gathering the data that will be used by the system (See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A) - Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g))). Accordingly, the limitation is not enough to make the otherwise abstract claim eligible subject matter.
STEP 2B: Under step 2B of the 2019 Guidance, we next analyze whether the claim adds any specific limitations beyond the judicial exception that, either alone or as an ordered combination, amount to more than “well-understood, routine, conventional” activity in the field. 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56; MPEP § 2106.05(d).
The claim is directed to a device that includes limitation (A), reciting a memory; and limitation (B), reciting a processor coupled to the memory and configured to perform the processing steps. Limitations (A) and (B) merely recite generic computer components as an apply-it type recitation for implementing the otherwise abstract concepts. Without more than a general recitation of the conventional components, the limitations do not add significantly more than the abstract concepts themselves. 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52-55; MPEP § 2106.05(d).
As such, the claim does not recite additional elements that, either individually or as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the judicial exception within the meaning of the 2019 Guidance. 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52-55; MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites the additional step of the processor calculating relative rotation angles from reference coordinates of a plurality of first joints to coordinates of a plurality of second joints by rigid registration. At most, the claim is merely reciting an additional characterization of the mathematical calculation of data (i.e. using rigid registration). Accordingly, the claim merely recites an additional abstract mathematical concept. The use of the processor, as stated above, is merely an “apply-it” type use of generic computer components that the courts have held are not enough to make an otherwise abstract idea into eligible subject matter. As such, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for substantially the same reasons as set forth above for claim 9.
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites, “wherein, the processor further calculates, by converting a second vector of the second joint based on a calculation result of the rigid registration, and applying, to a Rodrigues' rotation formula, an angle formed between a first vector of the first joint and the converted second vector of the second joint with a normal line between the first vector and the second vector as a rotation axis.” At most, the claim is merely reciting an additional characterization of the mathematical calculation of data (i.e. using rigid registration and a Rodriques’ rotation formula). Accordingly, the claim merely recites an additional abstract mathematical concept. The use of the processor, as stated above, is merely an “apply-it” type use of generic computer components that the courts have held are not enough to make an otherwise abstract idea into eligible subject matter. As such, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for substantially the same reasons as set forth above for claim 9.
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites “the processor further configured to correct the relative rotation angle based on a correction angle set in the skeleton information.” The limitation is broadly claimed to recite merely some mathematical adjustment of data (i.e. correction of an angle), which at most could be rounding or merely replacing existing data with updated mathematical results. At most, the claim is merely reciting an additional characterization of the mathematical relationship of data (i.e. by assigning the obtained mathematical result to a new form of organized data.). Accordingly, the claim merely recites an additional abstract mathematical concept. The use of the processor, as stated above, is merely an “apply-it” type use of generic computer components that the courts have held are not enough to make an otherwise abstract idea into eligible subject matter. As such, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for substantially the same reasons as set forth above for claim 9.
Claims 1-4 merely recite the methods performed by the recited devices of claims 9-12, respectively, and as such are rejected for reciting ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 for substantially the same reasons as claims 9-12 respectively.
Claims 5-8 merely recite the non-transitory computer readable recording medium that store a program which performs by the recited steps of claims 9-12, respectively. The recitation of the use of non-transitory computer readable recording medium is at most merely recitation of generic computer components as an apply-it type recitation for implementing the otherwise abstract concepts. Without more than a general recitation of the conventional components, the limitations do not add significantly more than the abstract concepts themselves. 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52-55; MPEP § 2106.05(d). Otherwise, claims 5-8 recite performing the same operations as the devices claimed in claims 9-12, respectively, and as such are rejected for reciting ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 for substantially the same reasons as claims 9-12, respectively.
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 1-12 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “specifying a second joint that corresponds to a first joint set in the reference posture information from the plurality of joints set in the skeleton information.” As currently drafted, the claim states that the second joint corresponds to the first joint, where the plain meaning of correspond is to match or be equivalent or parallel. As such, the claim appears to state the second joint is specified as the same as the first joint.
The claim then goes on to recite, “calculating a relative rotation angle from reference coordinates of the first joint to coordinates of the second joint” which is unclear of the meaning of calculating an angle between the same point (if applicant intends the first and second joint to relate to different data, the claim should be redrafted to clarify as such, e.g. clarify what specifically the joints refer to, and in a manner that clearly identifies which joint belongs to each set, i.e. specifying a second joint acquired from the plurality of joints set in the skeleton information, wherein the second joint is paired to a first joint, wherein the first joint is set in the reference posture).
Furthermore, the recitation of “from the plurality of joints set in the skeleton information” is unclear whether it is intended to refer to the second joint or the first joint set in the reference posture information. Part of the issue is also that the claim does not distinguish between “a plurality of joints included in a human body and coordinates for the plurality of joints” in each type of information, but merely recites the same language, which could be interpreted as overlapping or the same (which then is unclear how a relative rotation angle is determined from a single joint if the information overlaps).
Finally, the claim recites “the plurality of joints” in line 6, but also recites a plurality of joints in line 2, and then again in line 5. As currently drafted, the claim is indefinite as to which plurality of points is referred to in the 6th line.
Examiner suggests better delineating the data sets and how there are two separate data sets for obtaining the respective joint data (e.g. specifying a second joint acquired from the plurality of joints set in the skeleton information, wherein the second joint is paired to a first joint, wherein the first joint is set in the reference posture.) As such the claim is rendered indefinite.
For purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted as referring to two different joints contained in two different information sets containing two separate plurality of joints with different coordinate data set in the information (i.e. acquiring skeleton information in which each of a first plurality of joints included in a first human body and first coordinates for the plurality of first joints is set, and reference posture information in which each of a plurality of second joints included in a second human body and reference coordinates for the second plurality of joints is set; specifying a second joint from the plurality of first joints set in the skeleton information, wherein the second joint is matched to a first joint from the second plurality of joints set in the reference posture information).
Claims 2-4 depend from claim 1 and incorporate the same indefinite language without further clarification. As such the claims are rejected based on the same rationale as claim 1 set forth above.
Further regarding claim 2, the claim recites “the first joints” in line 3 and “the second joints” in line 3. The claim limitations lack antecedent basis (i.e. claim 1 recites “a first joint” and “a second joint”, but not recited as plural).
Claims 3-4 depend from claim 2 and incorporate the same indefinite language without further clarification. As such the claims are also rejected based on the same rationale as claim 2 set forth above.
Claims 5 and 9 contain substantially the same language as claim 1 and are therefore indefinite for the same reasons as claim 1 set forth above.
Claims 6-8 and 10-12 depend from claims 5 and 9, respectively, and incorporate the same indefinite language without further clarification. As such the claims are rejected based on the same rationale as claims 5 and 9 set forth above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bang et al. (US 2009/0322763 A1) discloses related art for obtaining skeleton information using position and rotational information, including finding joint rotation compared to reference information (Bang, Fig. 5 and ¶75: “FIG. 5 similarly illustrates example coordinates and rotation angles of respective joints of a skeleton model for representing positional and rotational orientation and movement”; ¶77: “Each of these represented joints can further be defined to have respective rotation angles relative to the respective reference axes”; ¶79: sets of information shown in figure 6 as obtained by measurement unit are transferred to estimation unit which calculates values related to the joint based on the received sets of information). Bang further discloses setting the skeleton information into hierarchical structure data by setting the relative rotation angle to the hierarchical structure data (Bang, ¶89: body represented by skeleton model having one or more link structures, where based on characteristics of each link structure, and distances between measurement positions, reflected on the link structures, and a reference position, the relative rotation angles and the position coordinates can be obtained for all parts of the body; ¶97: The skeleton model of a human may be configured as a data tree containing information of rotation angles and the lengths of links between a head or waist axis to parts near the axis). Applicant’s claimed invention differs, however, from Bang in that the claimed invention calculates a relative rotation angle between two sets of data, each comprising a plurality of joints included in a human body and coordinates for the plurality of joints, already set as data (as opposed to as they are measured), and where the calculated relative rotation angle is then used to convert the first set of data, which is skeleton information, into hierarchical structure data by setting the relative rotation angle to the hierarchical structure data (e.g. the angle of rotation between points of a motion captured skeleton data set with the matched points of a reference skeleton data set becomes the hierarchical data for the captured skeleton data set)
Tanabiki et al. (US 2013/0230211 A1) discloses related technology for estimating skeletal backbone for a person in an acquired image and converting the skeleton information to a second skeleton model, similar to the present invention. In particular, Tanabiki discloses the conversion of skeleton information (Tanabiki, ¶97: convert skeleton information described in the coordinate system of the target image into skeleton model description information described in a skeleton model coordinate system), including determining joint angles between a first joint and second joint (Tanabiki, ¶¶99-100: skeleton model description converting section determines joint angles of segments between joints – See Fig. 14). Furthermore, Tanabiki determines rotation for identifying parts by using a reference rotation line sweeping through joints (see ¶¶168-169, also 290: search range for different parts). Applicant’s claimed invention differs, however, from Bang in that the claimed invention calculates a relative rotation angle between two sets of data, each comprising a plurality of joints included in a human body and coordinates for the plurality of joints, already set as data (as opposed to merely finding rotation angles of a single dataset using a search type approach), and where the calculated relative rotation angle is then used to convert the first set of data, which is skeleton information, into hierarchical structure data by setting the relative rotation angle to the hierarchical structure data (e.g. the angle of rotation between points of a motion captured skeleton data set with the matched points of a reference skeleton data set becomes the hierarchical data for the captured skeleton data set).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM A BEUTEL whose telephone number is (571)272-3132. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 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, DANIEL HAJNIK can be reached at 571-272-7642. 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.
/WILLIAM A BEUTEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2616
Prosecution Insights