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 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1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17I has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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, and 3/31/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-5, 7-11, 13-17, 19-23, 25-29, 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being unpatentable over US 2013/0195178 A1, Price et al. (hereinafter Price) in view of US 6,766,037 B1, Le et al. (hereinafter Le) and further in view of JP 3788969, Tanaka et a., see google translation for citation (hereinafter Tanaka).
As to claim 1, Price discloses one or more processors, comprising: circuitry to identify a region of interest corresponding to an object in an image (Figs 1, 3; pars 0016, 0028-0029, identifying an object in a region of interest in the image);
assign one or more pixel within the identified region of interest to one or more areas within the identified region of interest based, at least in part, on one or more similarities between a motion vector of each pixel of the one or more pixels and a motion vector of at least one pixel adjacent to the respective each pixel of the one or more pixels in the identified region of interest (Figs 3-4; pars 0032-0036, assigning a pixel block (one or more pixels) to a region/sub-region; par 0031, based on similarity among adjacent pixels (equivalent to the similarity of motion vectors corresponding to the adjacent pixels));
and generate one or more motion vectors to represent motion of the object (pars 0018, 0023, 0043, generate/calculate a 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 (par 0031).
Price does not expressly select, from the one or more areas, an area with the most assigned pixels.
Le, in the same or similar field of endeavor, further teaches assign one or more pixel within the identified region of interest to one or more areas within the identified region of interest based, at least in part, on one or more similarities between a motion vector of each pixel of the one or more pixels and a motion vector of at least one pixel adjacent to the respective each pixel of the one or more pixels in the identified region of interest (col 2, lines 39-49; col 3, lines 43-53); generate one or more motion vectors to represent motion of the object, based, at least in part, on a calculation of a similarity between two or more motion vectors in the selected area (Fig 1; col 2, lines 22-55; col 3, lines 26-62).
Tanaka, in the same or similar field of endeavor, additionally teaches select, from the one or more areas, an area with the most assigned pixels (page 6, par 4, selecting a region with largest number of identified pixels from block of regions).
Therefore, consider Price, Le, and Tanaka’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 Le, and Tanaka’s teachings for identifying and selecting a region/area a group of regions in an image in Price’s processor to detect an object with most dynamic motion activities.
As to claim 2, Price 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 (Le: Abstract; motion vectors from current and previous frames), 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 (Le: col 6, lines 10-24, positions of pixels; col 18, line 51-col 19, line 10, translational movement).
As to claim 3, Price as modified 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 (Le: col 2, lines 22-55, segmenting objects and generating motion vectors).
As to claim 4, Price 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 (Price: Fig 3; pars 0009, 0020, 0029-0032; Le: col 3, lines 5-25).
As to claim 5, Price 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 (Le: Abstract; col 2, lines 22-55; col 3, lines 5-25).
As to claim 7, it is a system claim encompassed claim 1. Rejection of claim 1 is therefore incorporated herein.
As to claims 8-11, they are rejected with the same reasons as set forth in claims 2-5, respectively.
As to claim 13, it is a method claim necessitated claim 1. Rejection of claim 1 is therefore incorporated herein.
As to claim 14, Price 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 (Le: Abstract; col 2, lines 1-55; col 3, lines 5-25, pixel precision motion vectors from current and preceding frames), and the similarity is determined based, at least in part, on directions of the two or more motion vectors (Le: col 2, lines 22-55; col 3, lines 26-62).
As to claims 15-17, they are rejected with the same reasons as set forth in claims 3-5, respectively.
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 claims 20-23, they are rejected with the same reasons as set forth in claims 2-5, respectively.
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.
As to claims 26-29, they are rejected with the same reasons as set forth in claims 2-5, respectively.
As to claim 31, Price 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 (Le: Fig 1; col 2, lines 22-55; col 3, lines 26-62, growing region using motion vectors with similar motion parameters or if their similarity being less than a predetermined threshold).
Claims 6, 12, 18, 24, 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Price in view of Le and further in view of Tanaka and US 2012/0177249 A1, Levy et al. (hereinafter Levy).
As to claim 6, Price 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 considered but they are moot in light of new grounds of rejection.
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.
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
Prosecution Insights