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 .
The examiner acknowledges receipt of remarks/amendments dated December 8, 2025 in which, the applicants amended claims 1, 3, 9, 11 and 12.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-9, filed December 8, 2025, with respect to claims 1-2, 4-10 and 12-15 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 1-2, 4-10 and 12-15 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3, 7-11 and 15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-3, 7-11, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 12,322,182 by Kizilgul et al. (hereinafter ‘Kiz’) in view of US PgPub. No. 2021/0192756 by Huang et al. (hereinafter ‘Huang’).
In regards to claim 1, Kiz teaches an electronic device comprising: at least one memory storing at least one instruction; and at least one processor connected to the at least one memory and configured to execute the at least one instruction to: (See Kiz Figure 6, Kiz teaches an electronic device with memory and processor.)
input information about a first frame among a plurality of frames to a first object detection network and obtain first information about an object included in the first frame, store the first information in the at least one memory, and (See Kiz Col. 7, lines 30-41 and lines 52-63. Kiz teaches determining object information using a first frame and a neural network)
input the first information and information about a
wherein the first object detection network and the second object detection network are separate object detection networks, and (See Kiz Figure 6, elements 610 and 615, Kiz teaches two separate neural networks.)
wherein the first object detection network is trained to obtain information about an object by using a plurality of anchor boxes. (See Kiz Col. 7, lines 42-51, Kiz teaches training first neural network to find bounding boxes or search regions.)
However, Kiz does not expressly teach wherein the second frame is a next frame following the first frame.
Huang teaches wherein the second frame is a next frame following the first frame. (See Huang Paragraphs [0057], Huang teaches processing subsequent frames.)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kiz to include subsequent frame processing of Huang. The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following findings: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Huang in this manner because/in order to be able to determine optical flow and track objects.
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Kiz with Huang to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
In regards to claim 2, Kiz and Huang teach all the limitations of claim 1. Kiz also teaches wherein the first information comprises information about a bounding box comprising information about a size of the object included in the first frame. (See Kiz Col. 8, lines 3-9, Kiz teaches determining coordinates of the search region.).
In regards to claim 3, Kiz and Huang teach all the limitations of claim 2. Kiz also teaches wherein the first object detection network is trained to obtain information about an object by using a plurality of anchor boxes, and wherein the second object detection network is trained to obtain information about an object by using a bounding box of an object included in a previous frame as an anchor box. (See Kiz Col. 7, line 64 to Col. 8, lines 23).
In regards to claim 7, Kiz and Huang teach all the limitations of claim 1. Huang also wherein each of the plurality of frames is classified into a plurality of frame sections, wherein each of the plurality of frame sections comprises one intra frame and at least two inter frames, and wherein the first frame is the intra frame, and the second frame is an inter frame of the at least two inter frames. (See Huang paragraphs [0065]-[0066]).
In regards to claim 8, Kiz and Huang teach all the limitations of claim 1. Huang also teaches wherein the plurality of frame sections are classified based on a video frame included in video codec information. (See Huang paragraphs [0039]).
Claims 9-11 and 15 recite limitations that are similar to that of claims 1-3 and 7, respectively. It is for these reasons claims 9-11 and 15 are rejected similarly as claims 1-3 and 7, respectively.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6 and 12-14 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In regards to claims 4-6 and 12-14, the prior art does not teach or suggest “obtain the first information using an anchor box located in a first grid among a plurality of grids, and obtain the second information using a bounding box, as an anchor box, of the object included in the first frame located in the first grid.”
“obtain the first information using an anchor box located in a first grid among a plurality of grids, and obtain the second information using a bounding box, as an anchor box, located in a second grid among the plurality of grids around the first grid based on information about a motion of the object included in the second frame.”
“obtain the first information using an anchor box located in a first grid among a plurality of grids, and obtain the second information using a bounding box, as an anchor box, located in the first grid and a plurality of third grids from among the plurality of grids located at an upper, lower, left, or right portions of the first grid.”
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 UTPAL D SHAH whose telephone number is (571)272-5729. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:30-5:30.
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, Vu Le can be reached at (571) 272-7332. 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.
/UTPAL D SHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2668