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 .
Preliminary Remarks
This is a reply to the application filed on 03/02/2025, in which, claims 1-14 remain pending in the present application with claims 1 and 13 being independent claims.
When making claim amendments, the applicant is encouraged to consider the references in their entireties, including those portions that have not been cited by the examiner and their equivalents as they may most broadly and appropriately apply to any particular anticipated claim amendments.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on March 02, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and is being considered by the Examiner.
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 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)(2) the invention was described in (1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b), by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent or (2) a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent, except that an international application filed under the treaty defined in section 351(a) shall have the effects for purposes of this subsection of an application filed in the United States only if the international application designated the United States and was published under Article 21(2) of such treaty in the English language.
Claims 1, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (CN 117292432 A, hereinafter referred to as “Chen”).
Regarding claim 1, Chen discloses a data processing apparatus comprising circuitry configured to:
receive an image of a sports player during a sports event occurring in a sports environment (see Chen, page 4/11: “acquiring a target image of a judging object before starting a sports item, and determining a foot area image of the judging object in the target image”);
determine, using the image, a pose of a foot of the sports player in a spatial model representing the sports environment (see Chen, page 5/11: “the foot area image of the evaluation object in the target image can be obtained by recognizing the target image. Here, the foot region image may be directly recognized from the target image, or the human body bounding box of the evaluation target may be recognized from the target image first, and then the foot region image may be cut out from the human body bounding box region”);
fit a shoe model to the pose of the foot of the sports player in the spatial model (see Chen, page 4/11: “inputting the foot region image into a tread line detection model to obtain the tread line proportion of the feet of the evaluation object output by the tread line detection model”);
determine if the shoe model in the spatial model violates a rule of the sports event indicating a region of the sports environment within which a shoe worn by the foot of the sports player can be legally positioned (see Chen, page 4/11: “judging whether the evaluation object treads the line or not based on the treading proportion and the treading threshold value”); and
generate an output indicating if the shoe model has violated the rule (see Chen, page 8/11: “the line-stepping detection model determines the foot outline according to the foot area image, and the line-stepping proportion of the two feet of the evaluation object is output by using the position relationship between the foot outline and the actual starting line. And then comparing whether the line treading proportion is larger than a line treading threshold value to judge whether the feet of the judging object treaded the line”).
Claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons as discussed in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 14, Chen discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program for controlling a computer to perform the method according to claim 13 (see Chen, page 9/11: “provides a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having stored thereon a computer program which, when executed by a processor, is implemented to perform the method for evaluating a line of sports provided in the above embodiments”).
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 2-6 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Meetin (US 20180117402 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Meetin”).
Regarding claim 2, Chen discloses all the claimed limitations with the exception of the data processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein: the rule of the sports event indicates a boundary of a surface of the sports environment outside which contact with the shoe of the sports player is prohibited; and the circuitry is configured to: determine that a portion of the shoe model is positioned at a position relative to a surface of the spatial model indicating contact of a corresponding portion of the shoe of the sports player with the surface of the sports environment; generate an output indicating the rule has been violated if the indicated contact of the portion of the shoe of the sports player occurs outside the boundary of the surface of the sports environment.
Meetin from the same or similar fields of endeavor discloses the data processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein:
the rule of the sports event indicates a boundary of a surface of the sports environment outside which contact with the shoe of the sports player is prohibited (see Meetin, paragraph [1107]: “determining whether a foot fault occurs during service for which controller 1114/1134 functions as an intelligent controller sensitive to the shape of a shoe embodying object 104”); and
the circuitry is configured to:
determine that a portion of the shoe model is positioned at a position relative to a surface of the spatial model indicating contact of a corresponding portion of the shoe of the sports player with the surface of the sports environment (see Meetin, paragraph [0732]: “Use of supplemental impact criteria sets provides a capability to distinguish between different types of impacts, specifically between different embodiments of object 104 as it impacts SF zone 112. For example, if one embodiment of object 104 is shaped considerably differently than another embodiment of object 104 or usually contacts zone 112 for a considerably different Δtoc value than the other object embodiment, appropriate choice of the supplemental impact criteria sets enables IP structure 700 to distinguish between the two object embodiments as they contact zone 112. Taking note that a tennis ball embodying object 104 usually creates print area 118 of considerably different shape than a shoe of a person embodying object 104 and that a tennis ball and a person's shoe usually impact zone 112 for considerably different Δtoc values, the supplemental impact criteria sets can readily be chosen in suitable shape parameter sets or/and OC duration range Rtoc set to provide a different specific changed color X for an impact of a tennis ball than for an impact of a person's shoe or other body of considerably different impact characteristics than a tennis ball”);
generate an output indicating the rule has been violated if the indicated contact of the portion of the shoe of the sports player occurs outside the boundary of the surface of the sports environment (see Meetin, paragraph [0756]: “The supplemental impact criteria sometimes require that print area 118 be entirely inside SF zone 112. This is typically expressed by the physical requirement that area 118 be spaced apart from interface 110 and each other part of the boundary of zone 112. For this purpose, controller 702 or 752 may maintain an electronic map of zone 112, including the location of the edge of interface 110 along surface 102 and each other part of the boundary of zone 112. The general supplemental impact information includes the location of OC area 116 on the map. Controller 702 or 752 determines the expected location of print area 118 from the OC-area location and examines the map to determine whether area 118 is entirely inside zone 112”).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Meetin with the teachings as in Chen. The motivation for doing so would ensure the system to have the ability to use the information-presentation (“IP”) structure comprising an object-impact (“OI”) structure having an exposed surface for being impacted by an object during an activity disclosed in Meetin to determine whether a foot fault occurs during service for which controller functions as an intelligent controller sensitive to the shape of a shoe embodying object; to provide use of supplemental impact criteria sets to distinguish between different types of impacts SF zone; to determine the expected location of print area from the OC-area location and examines the map to determine whether area is entirely inside zone; and to generate a moving image of the server at least during tennis game wherein the server's feet positioned behind a specified one of baselines to one side or the other of the center mark on that line depending on the score of the game during a game is performed thus indicating a boundary of a surface of the sports environment outside which contact with the shoe of the sports player is prohibited; determining that a portion of the shoe model is positioned at a position relative to a surface of the spatial model indicating contact of a corresponding portion of the shoe of the sports player with the surface of the sports environment; and generating an output indicating the rule has been violated if the indicated contact of the portion of the shoe of the sports player occurs outside the boundary of the surface of the sports environment wherein the sports event is a tennis match and the region of the sports environment within which a shoe worn by the foot of the sports player can be legally positioned is a serving region in order to determine the position of a sports player's foot with respect to a defined boundary so that the accuracy of foot fault detection can be improved.
Regarding claim 3, the combination teachings of Chen and Meetin as discussed above also disclose the data processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein contact of the portion of the shoe of the sports player with the surface of the sports environment is indicated when the corresponding portion of the shoe model is within a predetermined distance of the surface of the spatial model (see Meetin, paragraph [0763]: “An electronic map of SF zone 112, including the location of the SF edge of interface 110 and each other part of the boundary of zone 112, may be maintained in controller 806. Responsive to the general LI impact signal, controller 806 determines the expected location of print area 118 on the map and itself generates the data for a PAV image if the IG condition is met”).
The motivation for combining the references has been discussed in claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 4, the combination teachings of Chen and Meetin as discussed above also disclose the data processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein determining if the indicated contact of the portion of the shoe of the sports player occurs outside the boundary of the surface of the sports environment comprises determining if a two-dimensional projection of the portion of the shoe model overlaps a two-dimensional projection of a region of the surface of the spatial model corresponding to a region outside the boundary of the surface of the sports environment (see Meetin, paragraph [0859]: “independently operable VC cells 1084, usually identical, arranged laterally in a layer as a two-dimensional array. Each AD VC cell 1084 extends to a corresponding part 1086 of SF zone 892. The dotted lines in FIG. 86 indicate interfaces between SF parts 406 or 1086 of adjacent cells 404 or 1084. The general layout of structure 1080 is shown in FIG. 86a. FIG. 86b depicts an example of color change that occurs along zone 892 upon being impacted by object 104 indicated in dashed line at a location subsequent to impact”).
The motivation for combining the references has been discussed in claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 5, the combination teachings of Chen and Meetin as discussed above also disclose the data processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the output indicates the shoe model has violated the rule if one or more predetermined thresholds associated with the indicated contact are satisfied (see Chen, page 5/11: “judging whether the judgment object treads the line or not by utilizing the treading proportion and the treading threshold value. The line stepping threshold can be adaptively adjusted according to the requirements of users in different scenes of sports, for example, for teaching scenes, the user can properly relax the limit, the line stepping threshold can be set to be greater than or equal to 0.2 and can be preferably set to be 0.3, so that training is facilitated; for a competition scene or an examination scene, the user can set the line stepping threshold value to be 0 so as to ensure fairness of competition or examination”).
The motivation for combining the references has been discussed in claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 6, the combination teachings of Chen and Meetin as discussed above also disclose the data processing apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the one or more predetermined thresholds comprise one or more of a minimum distance of violation of the boundary, a minimum size of the portion of the shoe of the sports player, a minimum time period of continuous indicated contact outside the boundary or a minimum number of successively captured images in which indicated contact outside the boundary is detected (see Chen, page 5/11: “whether the judgment object treads the line or not may be judged by comparing the size relation between the treading proportion and the treading threshold. If the line-treading proportion of at least one foot of the judging object is larger than the line-treading threshold value, determining that the judging object is treaded, and if the line-treading proportion of both feet of the judging object is smaller than or equal to the line-treading threshold value, determining that the judging object is not treaded”).
The motivation for combining the references has been discussed in claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 10, the combination teachings of Chen and Meetin as discussed above also disclose the data processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the sports event is a tennis match and the region of the sports environment (see Meetin, paragraph [1093]: “Prior to a tennis match, controller 1114/1134 is adjusted to select the return strip for singles or doubles depending on whether the match is singles or doubles. IG structure 804, specifically image-collecting apparatus 808, generates a moving image of the server at least during tennis service and return play, typically continuously during play including in-between point periods. Controller 1114/1134 receives the moving image via a COM path and analyzes it using the shape-recognition capability to determine when the server is serving and when the server is in return play”) within which a shoe worn by the foot of the sports player can be legally positioned is a serving region (see Meetin, paragraph [1094]: “Tennis service during a game is performed with the server's feet positioned behind a specified one of baselines 28 to one side or the other of the center mark on that line 28 depending on the score of the game”).
The motivation for combining the references has been discussed in claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 11, the combination teachings of Chen and Meetin as discussed above also disclose the data processing apparatus according to claim 10, wherein:
the received image is one of one or more images of a plurality of tennis players (see Meetin, paragraph [0758]: “Structure 804 is formed with an image-collecting apparatus 808 for collecting images, including PAV images, and a video screen 810 for displaying the collected images. Image-collecting apparatus 808, typically formed with one or more cameras 812, is deployed to have a field of view that enables apparatus 808 to collect an image of any part of VC SF zone 112 as well as an adjoining part of surface 102 outside zone 112, e.g., an adjoining part of FC SF zone 114”); and
the circuitry is configured to:
determine a serving tennis player from among the plurality of tennis players as the sports player for whom a pose of a foot in the spatial model representing the sports environment is to be determined (see Chen, page 5/11: “the foot area image of the evaluation object in the target image can be obtained by recognizing the target image. Here, the foot region image may be directly recognized from the target image, or the human body bounding box of the evaluation target may be recognized from the target image first, and then the foot region image may be cut out from the human body bounding box region”).
The motivation for combining the references has been discussed in claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 12, the combination teachings of Chen and Meetin as discussed above also disclose the data processing apparatus according to claim 11, wherein the circuitry is configured to:
record a first time at which an event indicating a start of a serve occurs (see Meetin, paragraph [1084]: “With OC duration Δtoc typically being 4-5 ms, invariably less than 10 ms, for a ball impacting a tennis court, the PP, AD, and CP supplemental impact criteria can include OC duration criteria in which maximum reference OC duration value Δtocrh is chosen as described above for the PP supplemental impact criteria to be suitably greater than 5 ms but suitably less than the time period during which either shoe of a person contacts the court”);
record a second time at which an event indicating an end of a serve occurs (see Meetin, paragraph [1084]: “With OC duration Δtoc typically being 4-5 ms, invariably less than 10 ms, for a ball impacting a tennis court, the PP, AD, and CP supplemental impact criteria can include OC duration criteria in which maximum reference OC duration value Δtocrh is chosen as described above for the PP supplemental impact criteria to be suitably greater than 5 ms but suitably less than the time period during which either shoe of a person contacts the court”);
determine, between the first and second times, if the shoe model in the spatial model violates the rule of the sports event (see Chen, page 4/11: “judging whether the evaluation object treads the line or not based on the treading proportion and the treading threshold value”).
The motivation for combining the references has been discussed in claim 2 above.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Doi (US 20230298194 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Doi”).
Regarding claim 7, Chen discloses all the claimed limitations with the exception of the data processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein: the pose of the foot of the sports player comprises a position of an ankle joint, a heal joint, a big toe joint and a little toe joint of the sports player; and the shoe model is scaled, translated and rotated according to the positions of the ankle joint, heal joint, big toe joint and little toe joint of the sports player.
Doi from the same or similar fields of endeavor discloses the data processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein:
the pose of the foot of the sports player comprises a position of an ankle joint, a heal joint, a big toe joint and a little toe joint of the sports player (see Doi, paragraph [0049]: “The depth image or the RGB image obtained by imaging the foot of the user is supplied to the processing unit 15A as measurement data, and is input to the learned model 111. In the processing unit 15A, by performing inference using the learned model 111 using the depth image or the RGB image as an input, 2D feature points regarding the foot are output”); and
the shoe model is scaled, translated and rotated according to the positions of the ankle joint, heal joint, big toe joint and little toe joint of the sports player (see Doi, paragraph [0057]: “in calculating the foot size, in a state in which a joint of a toe is bent (a state in which a finger is folded), a state in which a tip of a toe or a heel is hidden, or the like, the value is not accurate even if the foot size is calculated as it is. Therefore, here, the foot posture is calculated in order to consider these states. The foot posture is represented by a vector or the like representing a position in the space in the camera coordinate system”).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Doi with the teachings as in Chen. The motivation for doing so would ensure the system to have the ability to use the information processing method and a program capable of more accurately measuring a size of a target disclosed in Doi to obtain depth image or the RGB image of the foot of the user; to input measurement data to a learned model; to output feature points regarding the foot; to calculate the foot size using the foot posture wherein the foot posture is represented by a vector or the like representing a position in the space in the camera coordinate system thus representing the pose of the foot of the sports player using a shoe model according to the positions of the ankle joint, heal joint, big toe joint and little toe joint of the sports player in order to create foot modelling so that 3D shoe model can be used to fit according to sports player’s foot.
Regarding claim 8, the combination teachings of Chen and Doi as discussed above also disclose the data processing apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the circuitry is configured to:
perform image segmentation on the image to generate an image segment of the shoe of the sports player (see Chen, page 7/11: “determining the tread proportion label based on the segmentation proportion of the virtual starting line drawn on the single-channel image sample to the connecting line between the furthest point and the closest point”);
generate a mask of the shoe model in the image (see Doi, paragraph [0059]: “By using the learned model 114 at the time of inference, the corrected foot size can be predicted from the 3D feature points, the foot size, and the foot posture”); and
adjust one or more dimensions of the shoe model to minimize a cost function representing a difference in shape between the image segment and mask (see Doi, paragraph [0061]: “The 3D feature points from the 3D coordinate calculation unit 112 and the foot size and foot posture from the foot size and posture calculation unit 113 are supplied to the learned model 114. The processing unit 15A outputs the corrected foot size by performing inference using the learned model 114 using the 3D feature points, the foot size, and the foot posture as inputs”).
The motivation for combining the references has been discussed in claim 7 above.
Regarding claim 9, the combination teachings of Chen and Doi as discussed above also disclose the data processing apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the circuitry is configured to:
perform image classification on the image to determine the shoe of the sports player as one of a plurality of predetermined shoe types (see Doi, paragraph [0144]: “as illustrated in FIG. 16, in the display unit 16 of the information processing device 1, the AR image 521 of the shoe is displayed in a superimposed manner on the imaging screen 511, and the foot size 551 is displayed. As a result, the user can recognize his/her foot size”); and
select the shoe model from a plurality of predetermined shoe models each of a respective one of the predetermined shoe types (see Doi, paragraph [0145]: “determines whether the user has selected the purchase of the shoe being tried on in AR on the basis of the operation signal from the operation unit”).
The motivation for combining the references has been discussed in claim 7 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIENRU YANG whose telephone number is (571)272-4212. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10AM-6PM 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, THAI TRAN can be reached at 571-272-7382. 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.
NIENRU YANG
Examiner
Art Unit 2484
/NIENRU YANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2484
/THAI Q TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2484