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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a non-Final office action on merit. Claims 1-31, after amendment, are presently pending and have been considered below.
Request for Continued Examination
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17I, was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17I has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 11/17/2025 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/26/2023, 6/30/2025, 8/1/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections
Claims 6, 12, 18, 24 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6 recites: “wherein the circuitry is further to determine the one or more areas by determining adjacent pixels in the interest of interest that have motion vectors that satisfy at least a local similarity threshold or a global similarity threshold” in which “the interest” appears to be a typo of region or area. Claims 12, 18, 24 recite similar limitations and are object to with the same reason.
Appropriate correction is required.
:
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed Invention.
Claim 1 recites: “One or more processors, comprising: circuitry to identify a region of interest corresponding to an object in an image; assign one or more motion vectors within the identified region of interest to one or more areas within the identified region of interest based on one or more similarities between each of the one or more motion vectors and a respective reference motion vector in the identified region of interest; select, from the one or more areas, an area with a highest amount of motion vectors;” in which examiner fails to find a definition or description of “a respective reference motion vector in the identified region of interest”. Furthermore, examiner does not find adequate support of “select, from the one or more areas, an area with a highest amount of motion vectors” in original specification.
Similar limitations are also recited in independent claims 7, 13, 19, and 25. They are rejected with the same reason as set forth in claim 1.
All dependent claims, depending from their respective base claims, are rejected the same.
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 1-30 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.
Claim 1 recites: “One or more processors, comprising: circuitry to identify a region of interest corresponding to an object in an image; assign one or more motion vectors within the identified region of interest to one or more areas within the identified region of interest based on one or more similarities between each of the one or more motion vectors and a respective reference motion vector in the identified region of interest; select, from the one or more areas, an area with a highest amount of motion vectors”
As indicated in 35 USC 112(a) rejection, “a respective reference motion vector in the identified region of interest” is not adequately supported in original specification. “one or more similarities between each of the one or more motion vectors and a respective reference motion vector in the identified region of interest” is then renders indefinite as “a respective reference motion vector” is not described in original specification.
Similar limitations are also recited in independent claims 7, 13, 19, and 25. They are rejected with the same reason as set forth in claim 1.
All dependent claims, depending from their respective base claims, are rejected the same.
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 7, 13, 19, 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2020/0267348 A1, Hu et al. (hereinafter HU) in view of US 2009/0244299 A1, Fukunishi (hereinafter Fukunishi).
As to claim 1, Hu discloses one or more processors, comprising: circuitry to identify a region of interest corresponding to an object in an image (Fig 3; pars 0012, 0014, searching a region of interest corresponding to an object in the image); assign one or more motion vectors within the identified region of interest to one or more areas within the identified region of interest based on one or more similarities between each of the one or more motion vectors and a respective reference motion vector in the identified region of interest (abstract; Figs 7, 11, 27; pars 0008-0009, 0012-0014, 0045-0047, cal); select, from the one or more areas, an area with a highest amount of motion vectors (abstract; Figs 7, 11, 27; pars 0008-0009, 0012-0014, 0045-0047); and generate one or more motion vectors to represent motion of the object (abstract; Figs 3-4, 6-7, 11; pars 0007-0010, 0012, a motion vector calculation circuit to generate one or more motion vector representing the motion of an object in an image), based, at least in part, on a calculation of a similarity between two or more motion vectors in the selected area (Figs 8A-8B, 9, 11; pars 0012-0014, 0056, 0075-0076, 0081, 0084-0090, generation of one or more motion vector of the object being based on similarity measure of motion vectors of the object from the same and/or different frames).
Hu disclose selecting one or more region or area and searching for selected object (pars 0012-0013, 0052, 0056) but does not expressly teach such selection being based on the area with a highest amount of motion vectors.
Fukunishi, in the same or similar field of endeavor, further teaches a region may be determined and selected based on the criterion in which most numerous motion vectors being measured (pars 0011, 0013, 0036, 0053, 0088).
Therefore, consider Hu and Fukunishi’s teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art before the filing date of invention to incorporate Fukunishi’s teachings for identifying a region/area in an image in Hu’s processor to detect an object with most dynamic motion activities.
As to claim 7, it is a system claim encompassed claim 1. Rejection of claim 1 is therefore incorporated herein.
As to claim 13, it is a method claim necessitated claim 1. Rejection of claim 1 is therefore incorporated herein.
As to claim 19, it a non-transitory CRM storing instructions executed to perform functions and features recited in claim 1. Rejection of claim 1 is therefore incorporated herein.
As to claim 25, it recites an object tracking system with equivalent limitations to system claim 7. Rejection of claim 1 is therefore incorporated herein.
Claims 2-5, 8-11, 14-17, 20-23, 26-29, 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HU in view of Fukunishi and further in view of US 2014/0348238 A1, Morphet et al. (hereinafter Morphet).
As to claim 2, Hu as modified discloses the one or more processors of claim 1, wherein the two or more motion vectors include motion vectors for individual pixels between a pair of consecutive images (Hu: Figs 4-5, 8A-8B, 9, 11; pars 0003, 0004, 0007-0008, 0012-0014, 0053-0054, 0056, 0072, two or more motion vectors from a sequence of image frames or images contents (e.g. pixels data)), and the similarity is determined based, at least in part, on characteristic of the two or more motion vectors, including location, time, or movement characteristic of measure (e.g. directions of movement) (Hu: Fig 25; pars 0012-0013, 0070-0071, 0075-0076, 0167).
Nevertheless, Morphet, in the same or similar field of endeavor, further teaches capturing and measuring moving directions of second motion vectors and positions between pairs of frames in a sequence of image data (Figs 5-7, 9, 11; pars 0027, 0036-0038, 0056-0057, 0077). Therefore, consider Hu as modified and Morphet’s teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art before the filing date of invention to incorporate Morphet’s teachings in Hu to determine similarities of characteristic of two or more second motion vectors including their directions.
As to claim 3, Hu discloses the one or more processors of claim 2, wherein the one or more motion vectors include one or more representative motion vectors for the object (Hu: abstract; Figs 11, 21, 27; pars 0007-0009, 0011-0014, 0050-0051, 0055).
As to claim 4, HU as modified discloses the one or more processors of claim 3, wherein the circuitry is further to determine, within the region of interest for the object, the one or more areas that correspond to the object (Hu: pars 0007, 0053; Morphet: Figs 1-2, 14; pars 0003-0006, 0017, 0061, 0069, 0083, areas or regions of various interests associated with one or more objects).
As to claim 5, HU as modified discloses the one or more processors of claim 4, wherein the circuitry is further to determine the one or more motion vectors for the object using motion vectors that correspond to pixels of the one or more areas (Morphet: pars 0016. 0059-0061, claims 2-3, motion vectors for one or more objects being determined or estimated from sets of candidate motion vectors from neighboring locations sharing similar depth with current group of pixels).
As to claims 8-11, they are rejected with the same reasons as set forth in claims 2-5, respectively.
As to claim 14, HU as modified discloses the method of claim 13, wherein the two or more second motion vectors include motion vectors for individual pixels between a pair of consecutive images (Fukunishi: pars 0009-0010, 0069, pixel precision motion vectors from pair of frames), and the similarity is determined based, at least in part, on directions of the two or more motion vectors (Hu: Fig 25; pars 0012-0013, 0070-0071, 0075-0076, 0167; Morphet: pars 0085).
As to claims 15-17, they are rejected with the same reasons as set forth in claims 3-5, respectively.
As to claims 20-23, they are rejected with the same reasons as set forth in claims 2-5, respectively.
As to claims 26-29, they are rejected with the same reasons as set forth in claims 2-5, respectively.
As to claim 31, HU as modified discloses the processor of claim 1, wherein the one or more motion vectors are generated by grouping the two or more motion vectors that satisfy a similarity threshold (Morphet: par 0085, grouping two groups of pixels based on the dissimilarity/similarity of the groups).
Claims 6, 12, 18, 24, 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HU in view of Fukunishi and further in view of Morphet and US 2012/0177249 A1, Levy et al. (hereinafter Levy).
As to claim 6, Hu as modified discloses the one or more processors of claim 4, wherein the circuitry is further to determine the one or more areas by determining adjacent pixels in the interest of interest that have motion vectors (see rejection in 4) but does not expressly teach that satisfy at least a local similarity threshold or a global similarity threshold. Levy, in the same or similar field of endeavor, further teaches determining similarity measures for given pixel(s) with a score or threshold, which can be either local or global in nature (Figs 2-6; pars 0011, 0031-0032, 0034-0035, 0039-0040, 0045-0046, 0052, claim 10). Therefore, consider Hu as modified and Levy’s teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art before the filing date of invention to incorporate Levy’s teachings in Morphet as a measurement criterion for similarity measurement.
As to claim 12, it is rejected with the same reasons as set forth in claim 6.
As to claim 18, it is rejected with the same reasons as set forth in claim 6.
As to claim 24, it is rejected with the same reasons as set forth in claim 6.
As to claim 30, it is rejected with the same reasons as set forth in claim 6.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are moot in light of new grounds of rejection.
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.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular column, line number, paragraphs and/or figure(s) in the reference(s) as applied to the claims for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the reference(s) in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Qun Shen whose telephone number is (571) 270-7927. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Friday from 9:00-5:00. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's Supervisor, Amandeep Saini can be reached on (571) 272-3382. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/QUN SHEN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2662