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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), of which papers have been placed in the file wrapper.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 08/26/2024, 02/08/2023, AND 01/19/2023 have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 7 and 24-25 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 7 recites, “each of which satisfies a preliminary determined condition” this condition is undefined by the claim; therefore, it is considered to be indefinite since its metes and bounds cannot be determined.
Claims 24-25 recite “and classifying detection results each satisfying a condition according to subject”, this condition is undefined by the claim, therefore it is considered to be indefinite since its metes and bounds cannot be determined.
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 1-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding independent claim 1, the limitations of “detect a plurality of regions …”, “determine a degree of reliability of detection of a region…”, “search for a detection result …” and “performs the identical region search in preference to different region search” cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a “processor” or “computer” in claims nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “processor” language, “detect, determine, search, and performs”, in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually detecting and searching for different portions of an image. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Regarding independent claims 24-25, these claims recite similar but broader limitations, and are therefore also considered to be mental processes.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, as nowhere in the claim does it state what application is being performed. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – using a processor to perform the detecting, classifying, and searching steps. The processor in each step is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of ranking information based on a determined amount of use) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to detect, determine, search, and performs” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on non-statutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim 24-25 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 20-21 of U.S. Patent No. 12,307,811. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are anticipated by the narrower claims 20-21 of the US Patent.
Table 1 illustrates the conflicting claim pairs:
Present Application
24
25
US Pat. No. 12,307,811
20
21
Table 2 illustrates a mapping between the limitations claim 24 of the present application and Claim 20 of US Pat. No. 12,307,811
Claim 24 of present App.
Claim 20 of US Pat. No. 12,307,811
24. A control method that is performed by an image processing apparatus which acquires a captured image
20 A control method performed by an image processing device configured to acquire a captured image
and processes the image, the control method comprising: detecting a plurality of regions of a subject from the image;
and to track a subject across multiple images, the control method comprising: detecting multiple portions of the subject in the image;
and searching for, with use of a detection result obtained from a previously acquired first image, a detection result which is obtained from a current second image,
using a detection result obtained from a first previously acquired image to search for a detection result obtained from a current second image;
and classifying detection results each satisfying a condition according to subject,
and classifying a detection result satisfying a tracking condition for the subject,
wherein, in the searching, in a case where different-region search, which uses detection results of different regions between the first image and the second image,
wherein, in a case in which a different portion search using detection results of corresponding ones of different portions from the first image and the second image
and identical-region search, which uses detection results of an identical region between the first image and the second image, are performed,
and a same portion search using detection results of corresponding ones of the same portion from the first image and the second image are performed in the search,
the identical-region search is performed in preference to the different-region search.
the same portion search is preferentially performed over the different portion search, whereby the subject is tracked across multiple images in which portions of the subject are occluded in some of the multiple images.
Conclusion
Note: No prior art references have been found to reject the claims.
Listed below are the prior arts made of record and not relied upon but are considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Matsuda et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0366131 A1) ¶205, “In the present embodiment, the plurality of detectors includes the human body recognizer (third detector) that detects the human body area (third area), different from the first and second areas, as the area of the subject. The execution period of the human body recognizer (operation period in which the third detector detects the third area) is longer than the execution period of the head recognizer 124. When the head area is not tracked by the head recognizer 124 and the human body area is tracked by the human body recognizer, the controller 135 tracks the subject using the tracking result of the human body recognizer (S1, S5A to S8, S12 to S14, and S9A). As a result, it is possible to continuously track the subject by using the tracking result of the human body recognizer even when the subject is not tracked by the head recognizer 124, preferentially using the tracking result of the head recognizer 124 which has the shorter execution period than the human body recognizer.”
Murakami et al. (US Pub. No. 2014/0247374 A1) An image processing system includes a face detection unit to detect a face in an image and a partial region detection unit to detect a partial region of the image based on a position of the face detected in the image. A tracking determination unit may also be included in the image processing system to select at least one of the face and the partial region for tracking based on a predetermined condition, and to track the selected one of the face and the partial region.
Modolo et al. (US Pat. No. 11,048,919 B1) People can be tracked across multiple segments of video data, which can correspond to different scenes in a single video file, or multiple video streams or feeds. An instance of video data can be broken up into segments that can each be analyzed to determine faces and bodies represented therein. The bodies can be analyzed across frames of the segment to determine body tracklets that are consistent across the segment. Associations of faces and bodies can be determined based using relative distances and/or spatial relationships. A subsequent clustering of these associations is performed to attempt to determine consistent associations that correspond to unique individuals. Unique identifiers are determined for each person represented in one or more segments of an instance of video data. Such an approach enables individual representations to be correlated across multiple instances.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID PERLMAN whose telephone number is (571) 270-1417.
The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday; 10:00am -6:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Chineyere Wills-Burns can be reached at (571) 272-9752. 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.
/DAVID PERLMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2673