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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment to independent claims 1 and 10, the rejection of claims 1-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 14 October 2025 with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101, and the applications of prior art sources Hamana, Shet, and Koroku have been fully considered.
Regarding the rejection of claims 1-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 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.
Applicant asserts that the rejections of independent claims 1 and 10 are moot, as a result of the alleged direction of claim 1 to statutory matter; Applicant further asserts that the amended independent claim imposes meaningful limits on the practice of the abstract idea and subsequent integration into a practical application.
Respectfully, Examiner disagrees.
In addressing both of Applicant’s arguments, Examiner’s analysis of the limitations of the independent claims under their broadest reasonable interpretations was informed by two rulings on eligibility directed towards an alleged improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP § 2106.05(a)):
A claim whose entire scope can be performed mentally, cannot be said to improve computer technology. Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 120 USPQ2d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
A claimed process covering embodiments that can be performed on a computer, as well as embodiments that can be practiced verbally or with a telephone, cannot improve computer technology. RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1328, 122 USPQ2d 1377, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
All of the claim limitations of the independent claims can be performed as a mental process; furthermore, even if some of the embodiments may be performed on a computer, there is no indication of why this process would not be accomplishable in the human mind (i.e., unable to be done mentally/verbally, necessitating the improvement of a computer by the claimed invention).
Although a thorough analysis and rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 follows, the Examiner seeks to point out why the amendment to claim 1 does not further eligibility.
The added “captured image” limitation simply refers to an image captured at a prior point, without necessitating capture by the claimed device. This is accomplishable by a human simply observing an image captured at some point prior to the mental process of detecting the moving body. For example, a human could observe a printed captured image on paper or film, or view a captured image on a computer or camera screen.
The limitation “in the first mode…the human body detection section detects the human body from the captured image and…and not output information on the human body by regarding a result of the human body detection section as an erroneous detection when the human body detection section detects the human body from the captured image but the moving body determination section determines that the human body detected by the human body detection section is not the moving body” could easily be accomplished as a mental process. A human observer of an image, having made a decision to observe an image to see whether a human body within the image is a moving body, could determine whether a human body is present and in motion and report upon that; additionally, if the human body detected isn’t the moving body, the observer would not report anything verbally or through writing/recording.
The limitation “in the second mode…when the human body detection section detects the human body from the captured image” is accomplishable as a simple observation of the image to determine the presence of a human body in the captured scene.
Thus, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained.
Prior art rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) and § 103
Applicant’s arguments (Remarks at 13) regarding the application of the Hamana reference are summarized here:
Applicant alleges Hamana is only a classifier of human bodies rather than a detector, wherein warnings are simply assigned on the basis of the respective class of a human body. The claimed invention allegedly differs by employing both human body detection and moving body detection.
Applicant alleges that Hamana fails to disclose the amended, more detailed mechanism of both human body detection and moving body detection.
Respectfully, Examiner disagrees. Examiner notes that there are no specific distinctions drawn by Applicant regarding specific claim language, limitations, or features of the instant application which substantively differ from the disclosure of Hamana; rather, Applicant broadly alleges that the system of Hamana is a classification system and that the instant application is a detection system without addressing where the disclosure of Hamana falls short compared to the instant application.
Examiner is interpreting the claim language to mean that the moving body determination section of the instant application is directed to only be used on human bodies. In other words, other elements within a scene which might be in motion (e.g., vehicles, animals, changes in overall scene state) would not warrant any detection or notice by the moving body determination section. Under this interpretation, Hamana includes elements of both human body and moving body detection wherein the moving body detection is directed towards humans. As stated within the prior office action, Hamana discloses both a human body determination section (para. 0015, 0017-0019, disclosing a whole-body detection unit and detection units for different parts of the body) as well as a moving object determination section (paras. 0019, 0039, 0041-0042, wherein the vector of movement constitutes detection of the moving body and the direction of movement as a part of the process of the intrusion detection unit in conjunction with the detection unit). Hamana further discloses the human body detection section detecting a human body from the captured image, the moving body determination section determining that a human body in the first mode is the moving body, and not output information on the human body by regarding a result of the detection section as an erroneous detection when the human body detection section detects the body, but the moving body determination section determines that the body is not the moving body (para. 0018-0022, 0029-0032, 0041-0045, 0049-0050, and 0056, wherein the information output consists of human body information from the body detection unit and body movement direction vectors from the intrusion detection; the first/non-alarm mode consists of the detection of the body movement vector with respect to the intrusion line; and in the case that the detected human body is the driver, the driver is classified as such and may be removed as an object of consideration to ensure no erroneous intrusion detection occurs). This process of the disclosure of Hamana, wherein the driver is detected as a human but not as a human in motion, and thus is excluded from consideration as to not interrupt or propagate error within the mode switching and intrusion determination system at large, clearly satisfies all limitations of the key amended limitation of claims 1 and 10. The only “reporting requirement” under the limitation of the instant application is that the human body detected does not have information output; “regarding” the detection as erroneous does not necessitate any form of output information. Thus, this amended limitation is further anticipated by Hamana. Furthermore, the amendments to emphasize the first and second modes, wherein the first mode requires both detection of a human body and determination of motion before information is output, and the second only requires detection of the body, are also disclosed by Hamana, as stated within the prior office action (Hamana paras. 0018-0022, 0029-0032, 0041-0045, 0049-0050, and 0056). Thus, the rejection of claims 1, 4-8, and 10-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) is maintained.
Applicant’s interpreted arguments against the rejections of claims 2, 3, and 9 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Examiner further notes that Applicant did not argue against the application of the prior art Shet or Koroku within the Remarks; rather, Applicant alleges that each claim defines at least an additional inventive aspect. No distinguishing features are discussed further within the Remarks. This is unpersuasive as to the individual dependent claims.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The prior action identified certain terms as invoking 112(f). Applicant generally contests this (Remarks, 6) but does not identify a specific structure known in the art by the words of the claim. Applicant’s non-agreement is noted but is unpersuasive as the nonce words would not be understood to have meaning beyond a reference back to the specification.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without integration into a practical application or recitation of significantly more.
In the analysis below, the method of independent claim 1 is considered representative of independent claims 1 and 10, since all of the independent claims recite identical steps despite being directed to different statutory matter. Furthermore, each of independent claims 1 and 10 are directed to one of the four statutory categories of eligible subject matter; thus, the claims pass Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test (See flowchart in MPEP 2106).
Step 2A prong 1
The independent claims are directed to a human body detection device and method comprising:
a human body detection section configured to detect a human body from a captured image;
a moving body determination section configured to determine, based on the captured image, whether the human body detected by the human body detection section is a moving body;
a condition determination section configured to determine whether the human body detected by the human body detection section satisfies a predetermined condition shown by the human body framed in the captured image;
a mode setting section configured to maintain a first mode until the condition determination section determines that the predetermined condition is satisfied, and switch from the first mode to a second mode in response to the condition determination section determining that the predetermined condition is satisfied;
and an information output section configured to:
in the first mode, output information on the human body when the human body detection section detects the human body from the captured image and the moving body determination section determines that the human body detected by the human body detection section is the moving body in the first mode, and not output information on the human body by regarding a result of the human body detection section as an erroneous detection when the human body detection section detects the human body from the captured image but the moving body determination section determines that the human body detected by the human body detection section is not the moving body, and
in the second mode, output information on the human body when the human body detection section detects the human body from the captured image, regardless of whether the moving body determination section determines that the human body detected by the human body detection section is a moving body in the second mode.
Each of the above steps can be performed mentally:
The limitations of “a human body detection section configured to detect a human body from a captured image” can be considered an observation in the human mind, since a person can observe a human body in a captured image.
The limitations of “a moving body determination section configured to determine, based on the captured image, whether the human body detected by the human body detection section is a moving body” can be considered an observation in the human mind, as a person would be able to observe whether a body in an image frame is in motion, either from an image stream (live movement) or from a single still frame (with some indicators of motion being a human being mid-stride, moving limbs, etc.).
The limitations of “a condition determination section configured to determine whether the human body detected by the human body detection section satisfies a predetermined condition shown by the human body framed in the captured image” can be considered an observation in the human mind, since predetermined conditions shown by a human body can include, but not be limited to, a height threshold, a weight threshold, a hair or eye color, a color of clothing, or an amount of time that the human body is present within the image or image stream.
The limitations of “a mode setting section configured to maintain a first mode until the condition determination section determines that the predetermined condition is satisfied, and switch from the first mode to a second mode in response to the condition determination section determining that the predetermined condition is satisfied” can be considered a mental process combined with an observation in the human mind; specifically, a human can focus on an image or image stream, recording information about everything in frame (mode 1) until a person in a blue shirt arrives (precondition), upon which, they only focus on the person in the blue shirt and their particular information (mode 2).
The limitations of “an information output section” can be considered a mental process or observation in the human mind, concluding with a verbal or physical act of communication based on an observation or received/perceived information.
The limitations of “in the first mode, output information on the human body when the human body detection section detects the human body from the captured image and the moving body determination section determines that the human body detected by the human body detection section is the moving body in the first mode, and not output information on the human body by regarding a result of the human body detection section as an erroneous detection when the human body detection section detects the human body from the captured image but the moving body determination section determines that the human body detected by the human body detection section is not the moving body” could easily be accomplished as a mental process. A human observer of an image, having made a decision to observe an image to see whether a human body within the image is a moving body, could determine whether a human body is present and in motion and report upon that; additionally, if the human body detected isn’t the moving body, the observer would not report anything verbally or through writing/recording.
The limitations of “in the second mode, output information on the human body when the human body detection section detects the human body from the captured image, regardless of whether the moving body determination section determines that the human body detected by the human body detection section is a moving body in the second mode” can be accomplished as an observation in the human mind. A simple observation of the image would be able to determine the presence of a human body in the captured scene.
Additional elements
No additional elements are recited in independent claims 1 or 10.
Step 2A prong 2 analysis
There are no additional elements recited in the independent claims. Thus, there is no integration of the judicial exception into a practical application. Even if the independent claims’ interpretation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) were considered, wherein the “sections” comprise parts of an algorithm stored on a non-transitory computer readable medium and are executed by a processor in a computing environment, a claim whose entire scope can be performed mentally, cannot be said to improve computer technology. Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 120 USPQ2d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).Therefore, the analysis under prong two of step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test does not result in a conclusion of eligibility (See flowchart in MPEP 2106 and determination of whether a claimed invention constitutes an improvement to a computer or other technology in MPEP § 2106.05(a)).
Step 2B
Finally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 2-9 are dependent on claim 1, and dependent claim 11 is dependent on claim 10. Therefore, all limitations of claim 1 and claim 10 are included within claims 2-9 and 11.
Claim 2 recites wherein the mode setting section sets a mode for each human body detected by the human body detection section. Examining an image or an image stream to observe whether a precondition is met, and observing human body data regardless of motion if the precondition is met (according to the disclosure of the second mode) can be done through a visual observation followed by a mental process (e.g., observing a dynamic scene with humans, and if a human has been in motion for longer than a specific amount of time, recording identifying information about them regardless of motion).
Claim 3 recites wherein the moving body determination section does not determine whether the human body detected by the human body detection section is a moving body in the second mode, and determines whether the human body detected by the human body detection section is a moving body in the first mode. Observation of a scene, determining that a first human has met a precondition in the scene to switch modes and be observed without motion detection, and determining that a second human has not met the precondition and must be observed through motion can be done through a visual observation followed by a mental process (e.g., in the case of a security guard or police officer, observing a person deemed suspicious who is present and moving in an area for a predetermined amount of time and maintaining focus on them when they have stopped, compared to a person who has not met the predetermined time threshold and whose motion must still be observed).
Claim 4 recites wherein the mode setting section resets the mode to the first mode when the human body detection section no longer detects a human body. Recognizing the absence of human bodies present in a scene, thus negating any predetermined condition’s satisfaction, and reverting to the first mode can be accomplished as a visual observation (e.g., the aforementioned security guard, upon observing no human bodies, has not met a threshold for a second state and reverts to the first state of looking for human bodies).
Claim 5 recites wherein the predetermined condition is a condition that the human body moves for a longer period of time than a predetermined period of time with a motion larger than a predetermined amount. Setting a precondition based on a measured amount of time, and changing observation modes depending on an elapsed amount of time and distance can be performed as a visual observation; specifically, a human can observe passing time using a clock or stopwatch, and can measure average motion using a pen and paper to determine whether the precondition is met.
Claim 6 recites wherein the predetermined condition is a condition that a total period of time for which the human body moves with a motion amount larger than a predetermined amount in a predetermined duration until present is longer than a predetermined period of time. Setting a
precondition based on a measured amount of time, and changing observation modes depending on an observed amount of motion of the body in a certain time interval exceeding a predetermined motion in a predetermined interval can be performed as a visual observation; specifically, a human can observe passing time using a clock or stopwatch and motion either qualitatively (visually) or quantitatively (pen and paper), measure the period of time for which a motion amount exceeds a predetermined amount, and compare that period of time to the predetermined time period to determine whether or not to change modes.
Claim 7 recites wherein the predetermined condition is a condition that a human body moves from an outside of a predetermined range to an inside of the predetermined range in the image. This can be accomplished through a visual observation (e.g., a human visually determines that an inside of an image range is within a strip consisting of 25% of the image area, notes this using pen and paper, and can identify visually that the human body moves from outside of the image range to inside the image range to change the mode).
Claim 8 recites wherein the predetermined condition is a condition that a human body moves from an inside of a predetermined range to an outside of a predetermined range in the image. This can be accomplished through a visual observation (e.g., a human visually determines that an inside of an image range is within a strip consisting of 25% of the image area, notes this using pen and paper, and can identify visually that the human body moves from inside of the image range to outside the image range to change the mode).
Claim 9 recites wherein the human body detection section calculates the reliability that is a probability that a detected human body is a human body when the human body is detected from the captured image, and the predetermined condition is a condition that an accumulated value of the reliability of the human body when the moving body determination section determines that the human body detected by the human body detection section is the moving body is higher than a predetermined value. Calculating the reliability as a probability that a detected human body is a human body and comparing an accumulation of the values of the reliability of a human body when the moving body determination section determines the human body detected by the human body detection section is a moving body to a predetermined value to determine switching modes can be done as a mental process. Specifically, a human can determine a probability that a detected human body is a human body (virtually 100% for yes, 0% for no, and in between for uncertainty), add the probability scores as an accumulation of the reliability metric, and compare the sum and the predetermined value.
Claim 11 recites a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program for causing a computer to execute each step of the human body detection method according to claim 10. The use of a computing system with a non-transitory computer readable medium to perform the method of claim 10 amounts to merely implementing an abstract idea using a computer which neither integrates the mental processing into a practical application nor adds significantly more (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
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 1-11 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. Applicant identifies the support for these limitations as paragraphs [0008], [0023], [0042-43] and [0057]. Remarks, 6. A review of these paragraphs shows that the system simply does not detect a human. “Thus, the human body as a moving body can be detected with high accuracy. However, when the human body is stationary, the human body cannot be detected. “ [0008] “In the detection result by the human body detector 221, "o" section that the human body is detected, and "x" section that the human body is not detected.” [0057] This is not the same as reporting an erroneous detection in the claimed context. Claim 10 shares the same problem. The dependent claims (including Claim 11 for this purpose) inherit this problem.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4-8, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hamana (Japanese PG Pub 2020067905).
Regarding Claim 1, Hamana describes an object detection device directed to detection of intrusion by a human into a facility (para. 0010), the device comprising:
a human body detection section configured to detect a human body from a captured image (para. 0015, 0017-0019, wherein the human body detection device has a plurality of elements, including a whole-body detection unit and detection units for different parts of a human body);
a moving body determination section configured to determine, based on the captured image, whether the human body detected by the human body detection section is a moving body (paras. 0019, 0039, 0041-0042, wherein the vector of movement constitutes detection of the moving body and the direction of movement as a part of the process of the intrusion detection unit in conjunction with the detection unit);
a condition determination section configured to determine whether the human body detected by the human body detection section satisfies a predetermined condition shown by the human body framed in the captured image (paras. 0018, 0022, 0031, wherein the determination of conditions could consist of distances from certain key points, vectors which the detected human body was traveling along, or elapsed time during which the human body was detected);
a mode setting section configured to maintain a first mode until the condition determination section determines that the predetermined condition is satisfied, and switch from the first mode to a second mode in response to the condition determination section determining that the predetermined condition is satisfied (paras. 0018 and 0022, wherein the first state is a non-alarm state, the second state is an alarm state, and the switching condition is variable, but a specific embodiment comprises a human body existing in a predefined area for a predetermined time or longer);
and an information output section configured to:
in the first mode, output information on the human body when the human body detection section detects the human body from the captured image and the moving body determination section determines that the human body detected by the human body detection section is the moving body in the first mode, and not output information on the human body by regarding a result of the human body detection section as an erroneous detection when the human body detection section detects the human body from the captured image but the moving body determination section determines that the human body detected by the human body detection section is not the moving body (para. 0018-0022, 0029-0033, 0041-0045, 0049-0050, and 0056, wherein the information output consists of human body information from the body detection unit and body movement direction vectors from the intrusion detection; the first/non-alarm mode consists of the detection of the body movement vector with respect to the intrusion line; and in the case that the detected human body is the driver, the driver being a human body present within the driving compartment of a vehicle the driver is classified as such and may be removed at the discretion of an end user as an object of consideration to ensure no erroneous intrusion detection occurs, but is not considered on any level to be the human of interest whose movement is to be tracked and whose respective pose and trajectory are not recorded or output)
and
in the second mode, output information on the human body when the human body detection section detects the human body from the captured image, regardless of whether the moving body determination section determines that the human body detected by the human body detection section is a moving body in the second mode (para. 0018-0022, 0029-0030, 0041-0045, 0049-0050, and 0056, wherein the second/alarm mode consists of human body information and detection being relayed until the issue is either resolved by an end user, or until the human bodies in the frame disappear).
Claim 10 is rejected, mutatis mutandis, for reasons similar to claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Hamana discloses all limitations of claim 1. Hamana further discloses wherein the mode setting section resets the mode to the first mode when the human body detection section no longer detects a human body (paras. 0022 and 0028, wherein the state of the human body can be determined as “unknown” or “not detected”, and wherein the first, non-alarm state is the default mode).
Regarding claim 5, Hamana discloses all limitations of claim 1. Hamana further discloses wherein the predetermined condition is a condition that the human body moves for a longer period of time than a predetermined period of time with a motion amount larger than a predetermined amount (paras. 0018 and 0033, wherein the total period of time being exceeded results in an alarm mode being activated, and the predetermined amount of motion is the intrusion detection area, wherein any motion within the area for a certain amount of time or more would result in activation of alarm mode).
Regarding claim 6, Hamana discloses all limitations of claim 1. Hamana further discloses wherein the predetermined condition is a condition that a total period of time for which the human body moves with a motion amount larger than a predetermined amount in a predetermined duration until present is longer than a predetermined period of time (paras. 0018 and 0033, wherein the total period of time being exceeded results in an alarm mode being activated, and the predetermined amount of motion is the intrusion detection area, wherein any motion within the area for a certain amount of time or more would result in activation of alarm mode).
Regarding claim 7, Hamana discloses all limitations of claim 1. Hamana further discloses wherein the predetermined condition is a condition that a human body moves from an outside of a predetermined range to an inside of the predetermined range in the image (paras. 0018 and 0033, wherein the inside of the range would consist of the inside of the intrusion detection bounds and wherein the entry of the human body into the intrusion area would trigger maintained observation).
Regarding claim 8, Hamana discloses all limitations of claim 1. Hamana further discloses wherein the predetermined condition is a condition that a human body moves from an inside of a predetermined range to an outside of the predetermined range in the image (paras. 0018 and 0033, wherein the inside of the image range could consist of the non-intrusion area, the outside of the image range would consist of areas within pre-selected intrusion bounds, and wherein the entry of the human body into the intrusion area would trigger maintained observation).
Regarding claim 11, Hamana discloses all limitations of claim 10. Hamana further discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program for causing a computer to execute the method of claim 10 (paras. 0012 and 0014).
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 (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 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.
Claims 2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamana (Japanese PG Pub 2020067905) in view of Shet et al. (US PG Pub 20120274781, hereafter “Shet”).
Regarding claim 2, Hamana discloses all limitations of claim 1. Hamana further discloses wherein the mode setting section sets a mode for a human body (para. 0022 “determines the states of the human bodies”).
Hamana does not disclose wherein the model setting section detects multiple human bodies, in order to set a state for each.
However, Shet discloses multi-body detection (para. 0044, “Specifically, these hypotheses correspond to pedestrian detection hypotheses and pedestrian tracklet hypotheses. For every target at each time instant, a contact record with a unique ID is created for the individual along with a time, image ID(s) and locations in each video stream.”).
Specifically, Shet discloses a multi-pedestrian tracking method and system directed towards identifying and modeling pedestrian motion through occlusion, and applying an identification likelihood based on probability distributions. Therefore, both Hamana and Shet disclose methods of tracking and observing humans and the likelihood of human presence within image. Thus, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the multi-person detection and tracking method of Shet within the detection method of Hamana as the application of the known technique of Shet within the known method of Hamana to yield the predictable result of identifying and tracking multiple different human bodies for a better overall human detection, intrusion detection, and mode switching system.
Regarding claim 9, Hamana discloses all limitations of claim 1.
Hamana does not disclose wherein the human body detection section calculates a reliability that is a probability that a detected human body is a human body when the human body is detected from the image, and the predetermined condition is a condition that an accumulated value of the reliability of a human body when the moving body determination section determines that the human body detected by the human body detection section is a moving body is higher than a predetermined value.
However, Shet discloses wherein the human body detection section calculates a reliability that is a probability that a detected human body is a human body when the human body is detected from the image, and the predetermined condition is a condition that an accumulated value of the reliability of a human body when the moving body determination section determines that the human body detected by the human body detection section is a moving body is higher than a predetermined value (paras. 0011 and 0018, wherein the disclosed motion aspects include in-scene continuity and frame-to-frame matching, and wherein the calculated probability summation consists of the in-frame identity assignments of multi-person tracking, and the multi person assignments for the next frame, according to movement detection hypotheses). Thus, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the reliability and probability calculation and accumulation method disclosed by Shet within the detection method of Hamana according to the rationale of claim 1.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamana in view of Koroku (US PG Pub 20190183389).
Regarding claim 3, Hamana discloses all limitations of claim 1. Hamana further discloses wherein the moving body determination section determines whether the human body detected by the human body detection section is a moving body in the first mode (para. 0018-0022, 0029-0030, 0041- 0045, 0049-0050, and 0056, wherein the information output consists of human body information from the body detection unit and body movement direction vectors from the intrusion detection and the first/non-alarm mode consists of the detection of the body movement vector with respect to the intrusion line).
Hamana does not disclose not determining whether the human body is detected by the human body detection section is a moving body in the second mode.
However, Koroku discloses not utilizing a secondary source of information in human body detection and object characterization if a first condition is already met (paras. 0046 and 0048).
Specifically, Koroku discloses a method, system, and device for activity detection utilizing sensors. Koroku discloses obtaining a first and a second information and, when a determination about a specific mode being active is present, wherein the mode only utilizes the first information, the second information is not collected (para. 0065). Thus, both Hamana and Koroku disclose methods of human body motion and activity detection based on sensory inputs for activity characterization. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the mechanism of Koroku wherein the redundant information was not collected or utilized within the device and method of Hamana as an application of a known technique to improve a known device by limiting computational costs of the method of Hamana by mitigating redundant data.
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 ROHAN TEJAS MUKUNDHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2368. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9AM - 6PM.
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, Gregory Morse can be reached at 5712723838. 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.
/ROHAN TEJAS MUKUNDHAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2663
/GREGORY A MORSE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2698