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 .
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 claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: image processing module, object detection module, object tracking module, and correction module in claims 1-10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture and 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 1-3, 10-13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to the abstract idea of detecting a vehicle and tracking it as it passes through an area. This idea could constitute a mental process, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance a multi-step analysis is used in order to evaluate eligibility.
Step 1: Examiner notes that the claim is directed to one of the statutory categories, ‘a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter’.
Step 2a – Prong One: Examiner notes that the claim does recite an abstract idea, in particular ‘detecting a vehicle and tracking it in an area’. This idea could constitute a mental process, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Step 2a – Prong Two: Prong two is concerned with whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application, such that the claim is ‘more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception’.
In the case of claims 1-3, 10-13 and 20 additional elements include a system and processing, detection and tracking modules. In context of performing the identified abstract idea these elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity such that the abstract idea can be ‘applied’ on a generic computer as the tool to perform the abstract idea. Their application to the abstract idea does not represent an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. That is, the claims do not recite a technological solution to a technological problem. Dependent claims 2, 3, 10, 12, 13 and 20 merely recite implementation details of the mental process that are not technical in nature.
Step 2b: Similarly to the analysis under step 2a – Prong Two the above claims are found ineligible as they are directed to a judicial exception that is not integrated into a practical application because generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation since they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. These elements are recited at a high level of generality as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. The following were recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine or conventional computer functions: Performing computational steps on a computer, Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012), electronically extracting data from a sensor, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) and Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Claims 4-9 and 14-19 are eligible because they are directed to technical subject related to the object detection and tracking process.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 11, 16, 17 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims should not contain dashes “-“ to set up a bulleted list but rather should be in the form of a sentence. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 6, 7, 16 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities: the abbreviation “ID” appears without an appropriate definition in the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 9 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities: The “to” in the following language should be removed from the claim: “and to correcting the coordinate”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 9 and 19 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. Claims 9 and 19 both contains the phrase “sequence of image” twice with “image” in the singular. The antecedent basis support is for “sequence of images” (plural).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 10, 11 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanhere (US PGPub 2010/0322476).
Regarding claim 1, Kanhere discloses an object tracking system for use in traffic flow analytics, comprising: (Kanhere teaches a method for detecting and tracking vehicles for depicting traffic flow on a road, see Abstract)
an image processing module arranged to receiving a sequence of images capturing at least one object moving along a predetermined path in an area; (See Fig. 1 and ¶ 0066 which teaches processing the obtained sequence of images. Also see Figs. 2, 3 and 4 which show the camera setup in reference to the predetermined path in the detection zone/area.)
an object detection module arranged to detect the at least one object including identifying a predetermined category of the detected object; and (¶ 0097 teaches classifying the object into predetermined categories such as car and truck.)
an object tracking module arranged to track the at least one object travelling from an entrance to an exit of the predetermined path based on coordinates of the object in the sequence of images being detected. (¶ 0069 teaches the setup of the exit and entrance boundaries of the detection zone/area, ¶ 0116 teaches detecting the vehicle at the beginning of the zone, ¶ 0096 teaches the vehicle exiting the zone, ¶ 0064 and 0114 teach tracking based on vehicle coordinates.)
Kanhere does not expressly disclose that all of its above-cited teachings on vehicle traffic flow monitoring as occurring in the same embodiment. That is, despite the reference being clear that these functions are disclosed, there is no express disclosure that the details are all found in the same embodiment. Instead, the reference presents some of the individual detailed disclosures as ‘according to some embodiments.’ It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the various teachings to provide a single system capable of the variety of tasks which are disclosed. In view of these teachings, this cannot be considered a non-obvious improvement over the prior art. Using known engineering design, no “fundamental” operating principle of the teachings are changed; they continue to perform the same functions as originally taught prior to being combined.
Regarding claim 10, the above combination discloses the object tracking system in accordance with claim 1, wherein the predetermined category of the detected object includes at least one of pedestrians, a taxi, a coach, a bus, a tram, a collection truck and a special purpose vehicle. (See classification at ¶ 0097 as above of a car versus truck/special purpose vehicle.)
Claims 11 and 20 are the method corresponding to the system of claims 1 and 10. The method steps are necessitated by the system. Remaining limitations are rejected similarly. See detailed analysis above.
Claim(s) 2-5 and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanhere (US PGPub 2010/0322476) in view of Unel (“The Power of Tiling for Small Object Detection”)
Regarding claim 2, the above combination discloses the object tracking system in accordance with claim 1, including the sequence of images are captured by an aerial angle. (See rejection of claim 1)
In the field of object detection monitoring Unel teaches using an unmanned aircraft system to monitor objects. (Unel teaches the detection of pedestrians and vehicles from a micro aerial vehicle via a deep neural network technique, see Abstract)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Kanhere’s vehicle traffic monitoring with Unel’s vehicle traffic monitoring. Kanhere teaches monitoring traffic flow on a roadway from above, but does not expressly disclose doing so from an unmanned aircraft/UAV. Unel teaches the detection of pedestrians and vehicles from a micro aerial vehicle via a deep neural network technique. This cannot be considered a non-obvious improvement in view of the relevant prior art here. Using known engineering design, no “fundamental” operating principle of the teachings are changed; they continue to perform the same functions as originally taught prior to being combined.
Regarding claim 3, the above combination discloses the object tracking system in accordance with claim 2, wherein the sequence of images are captured at a shooting angle of a top view or a tilt view. (See Kanhere Fig. 3a)
Regarding claim 4, the above combination discloses the object tracking system in accordance with claim 1, wherein the object detection module comprises a modified tiny object detection network arranged to process the sequence of images. (Unel pg. 2, left column, ¶ 2 teaches a small object detection system based on high-resolution images. Also see Fig. 3 which teaches the tiling based approach for small/tiny object detection.
Regarding claim 5, the above combination discloses the object tracking system in accordance with claim 4, wherein the modified tiny object detection network is arranged to process a plurality of at least partially overlapping image tiles having an image resolution smaller than an original resolution of the sequence of images. (See Fig. 3 which teaches the tiling based approach for small/tiny object detection, based on setting up partially overlapping image tiles having an image resolution smaller than an original resolution.)
Claims 12-15 are the method corresponding to the system of claims 2-5. The method steps are necessitated by the system. Remaining limitations are rejected similarly. See detailed analysis above.
Claim(s) 6 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanhere (US PGPub 2010/0322476) in view of Wojke (“Simple Online and Realtime Tracking With A Deep Association Metric”)
Regarding claim 6, the above combination discloses the object tracking system in accordance with claim 1, wherein the object tracking module is arranged to assign a track ID for each of the at least one object being detected. (See Kanhere ¶ 0141)
In the field of object detection monitoring Wojke teaches tracking the movement of the at least one object using a Simple Online and Realtime Tracking with a Deep Association Metric process. (Wojke teaches the Simple Online and Realtime Tracking (SORT) approach to multiple object tracking. A deep association metric is learned on a largescale person re-identification dataset. See Abstract and pg. 2, Section 2.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Kanhere’s object tracking and flow monitoring with Wojke object tracking technique. Wojke teaches a technique to improve the performance of the widely-used Simple Online and Realtime Tracking (SORT) approach to multiple object tracking by learning a deep association metric based on an object re-identification dataset. Simply incorporating Wojke’s technique here cannot be considered a non-obvious improvement in view of the relevant prior art here. Using known engineering design, no “fundamental” operating principle of the teachings are changed; they continue to perform the same functions as originally taught prior to being combined.
Claims 16 is the method corresponding to the system of claim 6. The method steps are necessitated by the system. Remaining limitations are rejected similarly. See detailed analysis above.
Claim(s) 7 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanhere (US PGPub 2010/0322476) in view of Unel (“The Power of Tiling for Small Object Detection”) and Wojke (“Simple Online and Realtime Tracking With A Deep Association Metric”)
Regarding claim 7, the above combination discloses the object tracking system in accordance with claim 6, wherein the object tracking module is further arranged to assign a new track ID to a lost object which is not detectable in one or more previous frames; and to perform a merge track process to determine whether an identical object assigned with different track IDs travelled from the entrance to the exit of the predetermined path. (Unel, pg. 3, right column, ¶ 1 teaches that object proposals are merged for final detections in order to merge duplicate tracks.)
Claims 17 is the method corresponding to the system of claim 7. The method steps are necessitated by the system. Remaining limitations are rejected similarly. See detailed analysis above.
Claim(s) 8-9 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanhere (US PGPub 2010/0322476) in view of Unel (“The Power of Tiling for Small Object Detection”) and Matteucci (“Online Video Stabilization for UAV”)
Regarding claim 8, the above combination discloses the object tracking system in accordance with claim 2, further comprising a correction module arranged to correct a trajectory of the at least one object with reference to a template image representing a stabilizing region in the sequence of images. (Matteucci teaches motion stabilization for a UAV displacement between certain image regions in a template and the acquired images, see Abstract and pg. 23, last paragraph.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the above combination’s object tracking via UAV with Matteucci motion stabilization for UAV. Unel teaches a UAV for tracking small objects. Matteucci teaches motion stabilization for a UAV to stabilize imaging system that is in flight. Simply incorporating Matteucci technique here to accomplish the original goal of stabilization cannot be considered a non-obvious improvement in view of the relevant prior art here. Using known engineering design, no “fundamental” operating principle of the teachings are changed; they continue to perform the same functions as originally taught prior to being combined.
Regarding claim 9, the above combination discloses the object tracking system in accordance with claim 8, wherein the correction module is arranged to slide the template image defined by a user selected from one of the images in the sequence of image to match with an identical region in each of the images in the sequence; and to correcting the coordinate of the detected object by offsetting the movement of the unmanned aircraft system based on a shift of the template image at different frames of the sequence of image. (As above, Matteucci teaches motion stabilization for a UAV displacement between certain image regions in a user defined template and subsequent the acquired image frames, see Abstract and pg. 23, last paragraph.)
Claims 18-19 are the method corresponding to the system of claims 8-9. The method steps are necessitated by the system. Remaining limitations are rejected similarly. See detailed analysis above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Raphael Schwartz whose telephone number is (571)270-3822. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9am-5pm CT.
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, Vincent Rudolph can be reached at (571) 272-8243. 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.
/RAPHAEL SCHWARTZ/ Examiner, Art Unit 2671