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 .
Response to Arguments
The 101 rejection is overcome.
The examiner believes that Yan (Multicamera pedestrian detection using logic minimization) teaches the newly amended claim features. See section 3, which teaches in equation 1, the plane at height homography and ground plane homography which reads on plane parallel to the ground plane and at a height of H.
Section 4 of Yan, teaches that ground plane homography and using the plane at the average height ha to map to the top of the head. Changing the height plane changes where the point lands on the image coordinates. This reads on the shifting.
As such this rejection is made final.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-9 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Hoffman (202000364883).
Regarding claim 1, Hoffman teaches an object detection device for detecting a position of an object on an imaging plane imaged by a camera, the object detection device comprising (abstract):
a processor to acquire image data generated by image capturing by the camera and perform coordinate transformation, with respect to a position of the object, from first coordinates associated with an image indicated by the image data to second coordinates associated with the imaging plane (pars. 131-134);
and a memory to store setting information used for the coordinate transformation, wherein the setting information includes a set value indicating a height from the imaging plane for each type of object among a plurality of types of objects (pars. 61, 33 and 141), and
the processor acquires a position of the object in the first coordinates and a type of the object based on the image data and calculates a position of the object in the second coordinates by performing the coordinate transformation using the set value corresponding to the type of the object (pars. 129-134 and par. 61).
Yan teaches in section 3, which teaches in equation 1, the plane at height homography and ground plane homography which reads on plane parallel to the ground plane and at a height of H.
Section 4 of Yan, teaches that ground plane homography and using the plane at the average height ha to map to the top of the head. Changing the height plane changes where the point lands on the image coordinates. This reads on the shifting.
It would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in Hoffman the ability to shift height information as taught by Yan. The reason is to store plane heights and shift them to a specified location. Note that Hoffman already teaches class heights in par. 61 and 141.
Regarding claim 2, Yan teaches the object detection device according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of types include a type indicating a whole of a first object and a type indicating a part of the first object, and the setting information includes different set values for each type of the type of whole and the type of part (see section 4, “Occupancey likelihood maps”, teaches parallel planes for each object where certain planes only have part of the object).
Regarding claim 5, see pars. 24-25 and 59-65.
Regarding claim 6, see pars. 69-70 and 142.
Regarding claim 7, see Yan section titled “Joint occupancy likelihoods”.
Regarding claim 8, see Hoffman par. 7.
Regarding claim 9, see pars. 23-25 and 59-65.
Regarding claims 10-12, see the rejection of claim 1.
Claim(s) 3-4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffman (20200364883) in view of Yan and in further view of Koivisto (20190258878).
Regarding claim 3, Hoffman teaches detecting objects in pars. 145.
Koivisto teaches wherein the processor inputs the acquired image data to an object detection model to output a detection result, the object detection model detecting objects of the plurality of types, and the object detection model is generated by machine learning using grand truth data in which image data from the camera is associated with a label indicating each of the plurality of types (see prs. 146-148, training).
It would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in Hoffman and Yan the ability to train as taught by Koivisto. The reason is to use machine learning and ground truths to improve accuracy the more the model is trained.
Regarding claim 4, see pars. 171-173 of Koivisto.
Regarding claim 12, see pars. 171-173 of Koivisto and the rejection of claim 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 HADI AKHAVANNIK whose telephone number is (571)272-8622. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM - 5 PM Monday to Friday.
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, Henok Shiferaw can be reached at (571) 272-4637. 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.
/HADI AKHAVANNIK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2676
Prosecution Insights