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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Method, Apparatus, System and Non-transitory Medium for the Tracking of a Surveillance Target using Machine Learning and Skeleton Lines.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claims 1, 6, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Darko et al. (WO 2012112402 A2), hereinafter referred to as Darko, in view of Rong et al. (CN111696128A), hereinafter referred to as Rong.
In regards to claim 1, Darko discloses a tracking apparatus comprising: at least one memory storing instructions; and at least one processor connected to the at least one memory and configured to execute the instructions to: acquire video data including a plurality of frames from a camera that captures an image of a target range and generates the video data; detect a tracked target from at least two frames constituting the video data (Paragraph 5 and 6 and 59, Paragraphs 5 and 6 establish the processor and memory while paragraph 59 establishes the use of video data); extract at least one key point based on a skeleton structure of a person from the tracked target having been detected using a skeleton estimation technology using machine learning (Paragraph 36 and paragraphs 28-29, Paragraph 36 establishes that there are key points to be tracked and paragraph 28-29 shows that skeleton estimation technology is used including a classifier which would read upon the claimed machine learning); generate posture information of the tracked target based on the at least one key point (Paragraph 33, Relates to generating the information about posture from key points); calculate, based on the posture information, a score in accordance with a distance regarding a position and an orientation related to the tracked target detected from each of the at least two frames (Paragraph 42, Describes calculating a score for the system which uses the position and distances covered in this example during a dance); obtain a first number of pixels corresponding to a first length of a first skeleton line of the skeleton structure and a second number of pixels corresponding to a second length of a second skeleton line of the skeleton structure (Paragraphs 28-29 and 60, Darko discloses the use of a skeleton wireframe which would constitute multiple lines representing aspects of the skeleton with paragraph 60 showing that certain lengths can be associated with a 2d pixel area such as a wireframe skeleton); estimate a number of height pixels of the tracked target based on the first number of pixels and the second number of pixels (Paragraphs 35-36, The height is estimated by the motion of these points which are further described in paragraph 36); normalize the score based on the number of height pixels having been estimated (Paragraph 143 and paragraph 106, The skeletal sets are normalized which are used to determine the scores reflecting a normalized score and further paragraph 106 further specifies that the size of bones within the sets motion data may be normalized due to their size); and track the tracked target based on a on the score having been normalized, the position and the orientation of the posture information of the tracked target detected from each of the at least two frames (Paragraph 31, Establishes tracking a target).
Darko does not explicitly disclose the usage of a surveillance camera.
Rong does disclose the usage of a surveillance camera (First Paragraph of Page 3, Uses the frames from a surveillance video which would have to be taken by a surveillance camera).
It would have been prima facie obvious to combine the teachings of these two arts as it would have been simple substitution to replace the camera disclosed by Darko for the camera disclosed by Rong. As such, it would be prima facie obvious.
In regards to claim 6, Rong discloses a surveillance camera, wherein the surveillance camera is configured to capture the image of the surveillance target range and generate the video data (First Paragraph of Page 3, Uses the frames from a surveillance video which would have to be taken by a surveillance camera); and a terminal apparatus connected to display equipment having a screen for displaying display information generated by the tracking apparatus (Sixth new Paragraph on page 9, Describes the use of a display).
In regards to claims 9 and 10, they are similar to claim 1, and they are similarly rejected.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Darko et al. (WO 2012112402 A2), hereinafter referred to as Darko, in view of Rong et al. (CN111696128A), hereinafter referred to as Rong, as applied to claims 1, 6, and 9-10 above, and further in view of Khan et al. (“Tracking Multiple Occluding People by Localizing on Multiple Scene Planes”), hereinafter referred to as Khan.
In regards to claim 3, Darko does not disclose wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to track a pair with the smallest score detected from a preceding frame and a subsequent frame included in the at least two frames as the same tracking target.
However, Khan does disclose wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to track a pair (Last paragraph of page 1 and first paragraph of page 2, it describes the scored target as the same person), with the smallest score detected (Last paragraph of page 1 and first paragraph of page 2, the energy functional, which is equivalent to the score, is minimized), from a preceding frame and a subsequent frame included in the at least two frames as the same tracking target (First paragraph under 5.1, Khan discloses that there is a time window of t frames which would have to be equal to or greater than 2).
It would have been prima facie obvious to combine the teachings of Khan, Rong, and Darko as it would have led to a predictable increase in the predictability of tracking. Being able to maintain the tracked target consistently across frames is the exact purpose of tracking, and keeping an identifiable score would allow for easier tracking of the individual over time. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to combine these arts.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Darko et al. (WO 2012112402 A2), hereinafter referred to as Darko, in view of Rong et al. (CN111696128A), hereinafter referred to as Rong, as applied to claims 1, 6, and 9-10 above, and further in view of Maji (“Large Scale Image Annotations on Amazon Mechanical Turk”).
In regards to claim 8, Darko does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one processor of the terminal apparatus is configured to execute the instructions to set, onto a screen of the display equipment, a key point designation region where a designation image for designating a key point used to generate posture information of the tracked target is displayed, and output, to the tracking apparatus, the key points selected in the key point designation region, and the at least one processor of the tracking apparatus is configured to execute the instructions to acquire, from the terminal apparatus, the key point selected in the key point designation region, and generate the posture information regarding the key point having been acquired.
However, Maji does disclose wherein the at least one processor of the terminal apparatus is configured to execute the instructions to set, onto a screen of the display equipment, a key point designation region where a designation image for designating a key point used to generate posture information of the tracked target is displayed (Figure 5 and the first paragraph under “Interface & Instructions”, Figure 5 shows the key point designation screen while the paragraph describes how it works), and output, to the tracking apparatus, the key points selected in the key point designation region (Figures 3 and 4, the key points are the purple points on the images), and the at least one processor of the tracking apparatus is configured to execute the instructions to acquire, from the terminal apparatus, the key point selected in the key point designation region, and generate the posture information regarding the key point having been acquired (Figures 3 and 4, the key points are the purple points on the images and the bounding box acts as posture information).
It would have been prima facie obvious to combine the teachings of Maji, Rong, and Darko as it would have led to a predictable increase in applicability. As the ability to generate custom key points would allow for this system to be used for a variety of inanimate objects such as cars and other living beings than people such as horses or livestock. As such, it would have been prima facie obvious to combine the teachings of Maji, Rong, and Darko.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Amendment
The amendments submitted 10/10/2025 have been admitted into the record, and they make a number of changes that overcome all 101 rejections and 112 rejections. They overcome most of the objections except for the lack of specificity in regards to the title, and in response, an alternative has been proposed that would be acceptable by the Examiner to allow for the objection to be overcome on the next action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 14-17, filed 10/10/2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of the specified claims have been withdrawn.
Applicant did not make many arguments against the 102/103 rejections, and merely indicated that they incorporated elements from claims 2 and 4. That, since elements of claim 4 were incorporated into the independent claims, that the claims were allowable. However, the elements incorporated from claim 4 were not the elements that would allow the independent claims to be allowable over the prior art, and the that the amended independent claims incorporate more elements from the previously rejected claims 2 and 5 rather than the allowable material from claim 4. As such, the independent claims are rejected for similar rationales as used previously on claims 1, 2, 5, and 9-10.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CONOR AIDAN O'MALLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-0226. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am. - 5:00 pm. EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Moyer can be reached at 5722729523. 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.
CONOR AIDAN. O'MALLEY
Examiner
Art Unit 2675
/CONOR A O'MALLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 2675
/ANDREW M MOYER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2675