Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the applicant's communication filed on 12/10/2025. In virtue of this communication, claims 1-13 filed on 12/10/2025 are currently pending in the instant application.
New-claims 8-13 have been added, without adding a new subject matter.
Claims 1-7 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/10/2025 have been fully considered
With regard to 112 (b) issues. The rejection has been withdrawn in view of the amendment filed on 12/10/2025.
With regard to prior art rejection:
Regarding claim 1-4 and 7-8, the arguments regarding are not persuasive. Please see the response below.
Regarding claims 5-6, the arguments are moot, necessitated with the amendment filed on 12/10/2025.
Applicant Argument: Applicant argued “But a disclosure of displaying a confirmation message or a warning graphic is not a disclosure of to "cause a display to display a time-series transition of first information relating to a number of persons with the acquired interval being equal to or less than a reference value," as recited by claim 1.
Therefore, Updike does not disclose to "cause a display to display a time-series transition of first information relating to a number of persons with the acquired interval being equal to or less than a reference value," as recited by claim 1. Claim 7 recites feature similar to claim 1. Therefore, claim 7 is patentable over the cited art of record for at least the same reasons applied to claim 1 discussed above.”
Examiner Response: Examiner respectfully disagrees, Examiner notes the prior art Updike discloses the broadly written limitation argued above, Updike measuring the distance between guests and display an image to inform if they are not following the distance rule and they are too close during the party. ¶[0028] discloses based on the distance measurement determined by the measurement module 120, the graphics module 130 may be configured to render an image or graphic for projection or display to inform guests of their compliance or non-compliance with distancing requirements. By way of example, the graphic may be a proximity indicator that is displayed in an interstitial space between two or more guests, for example to visually indicate an amount of space that should be kept between the guests in order to comport with a special distancing requirement. Then in ¶[0040] discloses detecting close proximity between two or more guests in a predetermined amount of time. Examiner notes Updike disclose displaying information related to space between guests to show if they comply with the spacing rule or not.
As for claim 7, Applicant provided same arguments. Examiner respectfully disagrees, and provides similar rationale as indicated above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Limitations of claim 8 and 9 are similar to the independent claims 1 and 7. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 8, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Updike et al. (US 2021/0375117).
As per claim 1, A video analysis apparatus comprising:
“a memory configured to store instructions; and one or more processor configured to execute the instructions to: acquire an interval between persons included in a video acquired by photographing a target region;”(Updike, ¶[0024], then ¶[0027] discloses the measurement module 120 may, for example, process the image data received from the tracking modules 150A-N to identify a location of a guest's hands and/or feet to define a boundary that may be used to measure a physical distance between that particular guest, and other neighboring guests. )
“and cause a display to display a time-series transition of first information relating to a number of persons with the acquired interval being equal to or less than a reference value”.(Updike, ¶[0028] discloses based on the distance measurement determined by the measurement module 120, the graphics module 130 may be configured to render an image or graphic for projection or display to inform a guest of their compliance or non-compliance with distancing requirements. By way of example, the graphic may be a proximity indicator that is displayed in an interstitial space between two or more guests, for example to visually indicate an amount of space that should be kept between the guests in order to comport with a special distancing requirement.¶[0040] discloses detect close proximity between two or more guests for a predetermined amount of time. ¶[0042] discloses the graphics module (as shown in FIG. 1) renders or selects an appropriate graphic to alert and warn the guest that they are too close to a neighboring guest.)
Claim 7 has been analyzed and is rejected for the reasons indicated in claim 1 above.
As per claim 8, The video analysis apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to: “generate the first information relating to the number of persons with the acquired interval being equal to or less than the reference value, and cause the display to display the time-series transition of the first information.” (Updike, ¶[0024], then ¶[0027] discloses the measurement module 120 may, for example, process the image data received from the tracking modules 150A-N to identify a location of a guest's hands and/or feet to define a boundary that may be used to measure a physical distance between that particular guest, and other neighboring guests. ¶[0028] discloses based on the distance measurement determined by the measurement module 120, the graphics module 130 may be configured to render an image or graphic for projection or display to inform a guest of their compliance or non-compliance with distancing requirements. By way of example, the graphic may be a proximity indicator that is displayed in an interstitial space between two or more guests, for example to visually indicate an amount of space that should be kept between the guests in order to comport with a special distancing requirement.¶[0040] discloses detect close proximity between two or more guests for a predetermined amount of time.)
Claim 9 has been analyzed and is rejected for the reasons indicated in claim 8 above.
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 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.
Claim(s) 2 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Updike et al. (US 2021/0375117) in view of Conte, Donatello, et al. "A method for counting people in crowded scenes." 2010 7th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Video and Signal Based Surveillance. IEEE, 2010.
As per claim 2, The video analysis apparatus according to claim 1, however Updike does not explicitly disclose the following which would have been obvious in view of Conte from similar filed of endeavor “wherein the first information comprises at least one of a ratio of persons with the acquired interval being equal to or less than the reference value, and the number of persons with the interval being equal to or less than the reference value.” (Conte, see Table 1 and Table 2. Further page 227, Col. 1 pargaraph4, further see page 228, Col. 2, section 2.3.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Conte technique of counting people in crowded scene into Updike technique to provide the known and expected uses and benefits of Conte technique over monitoring distancing technique of Updike. The proposed combination would have constituted a mere arrangement of old elements with each performing their known function, the combination yielding no more than one would expect from such an arrangement.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Conte to Updike in order to accurately counting people while retaining indirect approach. (Refer to Conte, page225, Col. 1.)
Claim 12 has been analyzed and is rejected for the reasons indicated in claim 2 above.
Claim(s) 3, 10, 11, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Updike et al. (US 2021/0375117) in view of Frontoni et al. "People counting in crowded environment and re-identification." RGB-D Image Analysis and Processing. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2019.
As per claim 3, The video analysis apparatus according to claim 1, however Updike does not explicitly disclose the following which would have been obvious in view of Frontoni from similar filed of endeavor “wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to: cause the display further to display second information indicating a result of performing statistical processing on an appearance attribute of a person with the acquired interval being equal to or less than the reference value.”(Frontoni, Chapter 18, page 404, fig. 18. 2 shows head recognitions of people when they collide with multilevel segmentation. Please see the related section 18.2.3.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Frontoni technique of people counting and identification in crowded environment into Updike technique to provide the known and expected uses and benefits of Frontoni technique over monitoring distancing technique of Updike. The proposed combination would have constituted a mere arrangement of old elements with each performing their known function, the combination yielding no more than one would expect from such an arrangement.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Frontoni to Updike in order to provide reliable and robust counting and tracking people system. (Refer to Frontoni, page 401, paragraph 3.)
Claim 13 has been analyzed and is rejected for the reasons indicated in claim 3 above.
As per claim 10, The video analysis apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to: “cause the display further to display second information indicating a result of performing statistical processing on an appearance attribute of a person with the acquired interval being equal to or less than the reference value, wherein the second information comprises at least one of: a number of persons according to the appearance attribute of the person with the acquired interval being equal to or less than the reference value, a composition ratio according to the appearance attribute of the person with the acquired interval being equal to or less than the reference value, a second appearance attribute having a largest number of belonging persons of persons with the acquired interval being equal to or less than the reference value, a number of persons who belongs to the second appearance attribute, a list of appearance attributes of members belonging to a group of persons whose interval is equal to or less than the reference value, or a list of appearance attributes arranged in descending order of a number the members belonging to the group of persons.” (Frontoni, Chapter 18, page 404, fig. 18. 2 shows head recognitions of people when they collide with multilevel segmentation. Please see the related section 18.2.3 discloses when two people collide they become a single blob (person). Multilevel segmentation ensures that, when a collision occurs, even if two people are in a single blob, their heads are detected and taken into account as discriminant elements.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Frontoni technique of people counting and identification in crowded environment into Updike technique to provide the known and expected uses and benefits of Frontoni technique over monitoring distancing technique of Updike. The proposed combination would have constituted a mere arrangement of old elements with each performing their known function, the combination yielding no more than one would expect from such an arrangement.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Frontoni to Updike in order to provide reliable and robust counting and tracking people system. (Refer to Frontoni, page 401, paragraph 3.)
Claim 11 has been analyzed and is rejected for the reasons indicated in claim 10 above.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Updike et al. (US 2021/0375117) in view of Carey (US 2020/0221054).
As per claim 4, The video analysis apparatus according to claim 1, however Updike does not explicitly disclose the following which would have been obvious in view of Carey from similar filed of endeavor “wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to: cause the display further, when accepting specification of at least one of a display target period and a display target region, to display the time-series transition of the first information, based on the accepted specification.”( Carey, ¶[0109] discloses the data analytics module 140 may be configured to provide graphical representations of numerous abnormal conditions to better facilitate recognition of patterns or very high levels (and/or predetermined levels) of one or more abnormal conditions. This may allow a higher number of patterns to be tracked and analyzed by one or more individuals. The data analytics module 140 may also recognize contact between individuals wherein the contact may be physical contact (e.g., handshake, an embrace or exchange of an object) or contact may be non-contact (e.g., engage in conversation, prolonged eye-contact or engaging in other non-physical contact that would indicate acknowledgement therebetween). Further see Figure 8, and related paragraphs. )
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Carey technique of displaying identification of people in crowd into Updike technique to provide the known and expected uses and benefits of Carey technique over monitoring distancing technique of Updike. The proposed combination would have constituted a mere arrangement of old elements with each performing their known function, the combination yielding no more than one would expect from such an arrangement.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Carey to Updike in order to monitoring in real-time and accurately detecting suspicious behaviors to alert and display the investigation analysis. (Refer to Carey, ¶[0006].)
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Updike et al. (US 2021/0375117) in view of Gloudemans et al; “Quantifying social distancing compliance and the effects of behavioral interventions using computer vision.”; Proceedings of the Workshop on Data-Driven and Intelligent Cyber-Physical Systems, 2021.
As per claim 5, A video analysis apparatus comprising: a memory configured to store instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to: “acquire an interval between persons included in a video acquired by photographing a target region;” (Updike, ¶[0024], then ¶[0027] discloses the measurement module 120 may, for example, process the image data received from the tracking modules 150A-N to identify a location of a guest's hands and/or feet to define a boundary that may be used to measure a physical distance between that particular guest, and other neighboring guests.)
“cause a display to display dense level information indicating a dense level of the persons in at least three stages by superimposing the dense level information on an image indicating the target region, the dense level information being acquired based on the acquired interval;”(Gloudemans, Page 2, Col 2, last paragraph discloses compute the distance matrix between multiple pedestrians in a video frame using Haversine distance and classify a social distancing infraction as an inter-personal distance of less than six feet. Further page 3, Col. 1, paragraph 1, discloses Bounding boxes of detected objects are superimposed on the image and ellipses are drawn around the feet of pedestrians to indicate their six-foot distancing zone. The ellipses are colored according to the lowest detected inter-personal distance for each pedestrian: green, > 10ft; yellow, 8-10ft; orange, 6-8ft; red, < 6ft. Two examples of annotated images from the system are shown in Figure 1.)
“and cause the display to display dense regions corresponding to different dense levels in different manners from each other.”(Gloudemans, Figure. 1, page 3, Col. 1, paragraph 1, discloses The ellipses are colored according to the lowest detected inter-personal distance for each pedestrian: green, > 10ft; yellow, 8-10ft; orange, 6-8ft; red, < 6ft. Two examples of annotated images from the system are shown in Figure 1. Then page 4, Col. 1, last paragraph discloses The spatial distribution of infractions that were observed at the Edgehill location (two camera views) are shown in the heatmap in Figure 5.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Gloudemans technique of social distancing monitoring into Updike technique to provide the known and expected uses and benefits of Gloudemans technique over monitoring distancing technique of Updike. The proposed combination would have constituted a mere arrangement of old elements with each performing their known function, the combination yielding no more than one would expect from such an arrangement.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Gloudemans to Updike in order to provide and design safer space for people. (Refer to Gloudemans, introduction page 2, Col. 1.)
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Updike et al. (US 2021/0375117) in view of Gloudemans et al; “Quantifying social distancing compliance and the effects of behavioral interventions using computer vision.”; Proceedings of the Workshop on Data-Driven and Intelligent Cyber-Physical Systems, 2021, further in view of Papke et al. (US 2011/0231419 ).
As per claim 6, The video analysis apparatus according to claim 5, Updike as modified by Gloudemans further discloses “wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to: “display a time-series transition of the dense level information”(Gloudemans, page 2, Col. 1, 3.1 discloses It outputs, for each video frame that is analyzed, the timestamp corresponding to the video frame, source camera stream identifier, GPS coordinates of all detected pedestrians, cyclists, and vehicles, number of detected pedestrians, and number of detected social distancing infractions. Figure 1,and related paragraphs, and page 4, Col. 1, and figure 3, discloses time series plots of number of pedestrians and infraction over time. )
“ and cause the display to: display a dense region, which is classified into any of at least three dense levels, by superimposing the dense region on the image indicating the target region, and display dense regions corresponding to different dense levels in different manners from each other.” (Gloudemans, Figure. 1, page 3, Col. 1, paragraph 1, discloses The ellipses are colored according to the lowest detected inter-personal distance for each pedestrian: green, > 10ft; yellow, 8-10ft; orange, 6-8ft; red, < 6ft. Two examples of annotated images from the system are shown in Figure 1. Then page 4, Col. 1, last paragraph discloses The spatial distribution of infractions that were observed at the Edgehill location (two camera views) are shown in the heatmap in Figure 5.)
However Updike as modified by Gloudemans does not explicitly disclose the following which would have been obvious in view of Papke from similar filed of endeavor “accepting specification of at least one of a display target period and a display target region” “based on the accepted specification” (Papke, ¶[0097] discloses A heatmap is a graphical representation of data where measured or otherwise determined values of a variable indicative of use (e.g., frequency of passage, dwell time) in a two-dimensional area are represented in a map format as colors or shades of grey. Such may be overlaid on a captured image or video frame of the two-dimensional area. Figure 10 and related paragraphs ¶[0099] and ¶[0100] . ¶[0140] discloses a traffic flow timeline reporting database query. The traffic flow timeline reporting database query produces information which describes traffic flow at a location over a particular period of time. Further see ¶[0141] and ¶[0149] discloses The count database timeline database query produces information which describes the numbers of people at, or passing through, a particular location over a particular period of time. Such may reflect the number of customers, the number of employees and/or the total population. The general query may be preconfigured, with only selected parameters such as date, time location configurable.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Papke technique of social distancing monitoring into Updike as modified by Gloudemans technique to provide the known and expected uses and benefits of Papke technique over monitoring distancing technique of Updike as modified by Gloudemans. The proposed combination would have constituted a mere arrangement of old elements with each performing their known function, the combination yielding no more than one would expect from such an arrangement.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Papke to Updike as modified by Gloudemans in order to provide and design safer space for people. (Refer to Papke, introduction page 2, Col. 1.)
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 SHAGHAYEGH AZIMA whose telephone number is (571)272-1459. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:30-6:30.
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.
/SHAGHAYEGH AZIMA/Examiner, Art Unit 2671