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
RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS
112f INTERPRETATION
The examiner acknowledge the cancellation of claims 9-11 filed 02/09/2026. After carefully reviewing applicant amendments, 35 USC 112f guidance and applicant arguments, amendments are sufficient to overcome 112(f) interpretation.
Prior Art Rejection
The examiner acknowledges the amendment of claims 1 and the cancellation of claims 9-11 filed 02/09/2026. Applicants arguments filed on (02/09/2026) have been fully considered but are deemed moot in view of new grounds of rejection. Due to the variation in claim scope via amendments a new ground of rejection is proper.
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 of this title, 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Elliethy et al. (U.S. Publication 2017/0236284) in view of Lu et al. (U.S. Publication 2018/0350085) & Mirza et al. (U.S. Publication 2022/0148195)
As to claim 1, Elliethy discloses storing data representing the global location of the roadway(s); thereby providing at least one globally located roadway in the scene ([0038-0040, 0042, 0044] & Fig. 1-2 discloses a geo-registered vector road map (global coordinates) used as registration target; the roadway polylines are “globally located”)
acquiring images of the scene, using the video camera (Abstract, [0004-0005, 0038-0040] discloses an aerial imaging platform. Wherein aligning a series of images, captured by a camera on an aerial imaging platform);
detecting and tracking at least one vehicle traveling on one of the roadway(s) within the images, such that the video camera acquires a track path of the vehicle on a portion of the roadway; (See Abstract, [0006, 0043-0045, 0049-0054] wherein (a) identifying locations of moving vehicles in at least one image; Also, see [0006] discloses estimating an initial set of moving vehicle detections corresponding to putative vehicle locations in the imaged scene. See detecting vehicles and uses their trajectories (track paths) as alignment signals; See Fig. 12 for blocks for vehicle detection; See Fig. 14 for algorithm steps referencing detections. Track Path = Vehicle Detections/Trajectories.)
matching the track path with a corresponding globally located roadway; ([0031-0034] & Fig. 12, 14 discloses transforms detections/trajectories to the common road network frame and associates them to road polylines (the “globally located roadway”)
Elliethy discloses models global motion as a homography ([0038-0041]). showing multiple vehicles/detections/trajectories (Fig. 24 & [0031]) and explains leveraging multiple motions to improve alignment ([0038-0041]).
Elliethy is silent to using the result of the matching step to generate a candidate homography matrix; repeating the tracking and matching steps for at least one additional vehicle traveling in a different direction on the roadway or on a different roadway in the scene,
thereby obtaining a set of candidate homography matrices; evaluating homographies resulting from each of the candidate matrices; selecting a best homograph based on the evaluating step.
However, Lu discloses using the result of the matching step to generate a candidate homography matrix (Fig. 9 & [0012, 0018-0022, 0033] discloses candidate homography); repeating the tracking and matching steps for at least one additional vehicle traveling in a different direction on the roadway or on a different roadway in the scene,
thereby obtaining a set of candidate homography matrices (Fig. 9 discloses supporting iterating/testing multiple candidates.); evaluating homographies resulting from each of the candidate matrices ([Fig. 9 & [0018-0022, 0033] discloses testing/evaluating candidate homographies to establish a preferred one.); selecting a best homograph based on the evaluating step ([Fig. 9 & [0018-0022, 0033] discloses preferred/best homography).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Elliethy’s disclosure to include the above limitations in order to improve registration accuracy and reliability when vehicle-based cues provide multiple plausible mappings.
Elliethy in view of Lu is silent to detecting an object in a subsequent scene captured by the video camera; using the homograph to map an object in the subsequent scene to global coordinates, thereby determining the location of the object within the scene.
However, Mirza discloses detecting an object in a subsequent scene captured by the video camera ([0108] discloses tracking system 100 may receive a second frame 302 from a second sensor 108. Tracking system 100 may determine a second pixel location 402 in the second frame 302 for the object in the space 102. ); using the homograph to map an object in the subsequent scene to global coordinates, thereby determining the location of the object within the scene ([0094] discloses once generated the homography 118 can be used to translate between pixel locations 402 in images (e.g. frames 302) captured by a sensor 108 and (x,y) coordinates 306 in the global plane 104 (i.e. physical locations in the space 102. The generated homography 118 allows the tracking system 100 to map pixel locations 402 in a frame from the sensor 108 to (x,y) coordinates 306 in the global plane 104. Also See [0094, 0104, 0107-0108]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Elliethy in view of Lu’s disclosure to include the above limitations in order to determine the global location of an object detected after the homography has been selected.
Claims 2-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Elliethy et al. (U.S. Publication 2017/0236284) in view of Lu et al. (U.S. Publication 2018/0350085) & Mirza et al. (U.S. Publication 2022/0148195) as applied in claim 1 above further in view of Gupta et al. (U.S. Publication 2010/0033567)
As to claim 2, Elliethy in view of Lu & Mirza discloses everything as disclosed in claim 1 but is silent to wherein the camera is moveable to change its viewpoint, and further comprising repeating the homography generation process after the camera changes perspective.
However, Gupta discloses PTZ moveable cameras and the need to re-calibrate/update geometry after movement [0004-0008], including calibration procedures and controller profiles (e.g. PTZ) that necessarily trigger re-estimation after a viewpoint change. Examiner sees “camera is moveable to change its viewpoint change” as PTZ operation; “repeat homography generation after change” as re-calibration/update of geometric parameter upon movement.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Elliethy in view of Lu & Mirza’s disclosure to include the above limitations in order to maintain geometric accuracy during tracking as perspective changes.
As to claim 3, Elliethy in view of Lu, MIrza & Gupta discloses everything as disclosed in claim 2. In addition, Gupta discloses wherein the camera is operable to move in a tilt movement. ([0006-0008] discloses PTZ wherein T is tilting)
As to claim 4, Elliethy in view of Lu, Mirza & Gupta discloses everything as disclosed in claim 2. In addition, Gupta discloses wherein the camera is operable to move in a pan movement. ([0006-0008] discloses PTZ wherein P is panning)
As to claim 5, Elliethy in view of Lu & Mirza discloses everything as disclosed in claim 1. In addition, Elliethy discloses wherein the global location is provided by GPS (global positioning system). ([0038-0041] discloses GPS/INS meta-data stored with frames to align to a GIS road network.)
As to claim 6, Elliethy in view of Lu & Mirza discloses everything as disclosed in claim 1. In addition, Elliethy discloses an initialization process performed by acquiring a historical image of traffic flow on the roadway, mapping traffic paths to a top down view of the traffic scene, and converting the results of the mapping step to global coordinates. ([0031] & Fig. 12 discloses aligning to a common-geo-referenced frame and provides the coordinate transform from camera native to geo-referenced (Fig. 13 & [0019-0021, 0039-0041]). Examiner views “historical image of traffic flow” as previously acquired sequences with path/trajectories and “mapping to top down and convert to global as “transform to GIS road reference frame)
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elliethy et al. (U.S. Publication 2017/0236284) in view of Lu et al. (U.S. Publication 2018/0350085) & Mirza et al. (U.S. Publication 2022/0148195) as applied in claim 1 above further in view of Weiland et al. (U.S. Publication 2017/0045370)
As to claim 7, Elliethy in view of Lu & Mirza discloses everything as disclosed in claim 1. In addition, Elliethy discloses providing the homography based alignment of camera imagery to a geo-referenced road network (Fig. 13 transform; Fig. 24 trajectories on roads; [0019-0021, 0031, 0038-0041]
Elliethy in view of Lu & Mirza is silent to adding roadway information to the homography, such as, without limitation, road names, number of roadway lanes, direction of roadway travel, and speed limits.
However, Weiland’s Figs. 2-3 & [0004-0006, 0030-0036] discloses storing and serving road segment attributes including road names, speed limits, number of lanes, intersections.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Elliethy in view of Lu & Mirza’s disclosure to include the above limitations in order to enable attribute aware analytics (e.g. lane aware tracking speed limit compliance) at the same coordinates.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elliethy et al. (U.S. Publication 2017/0236284) in view of Lu et al. (U.S. Publication 2018/0350085) & Mirza et al. (U.S. Publication 2022/0148195) as applied in claim 1 above further in view of SHAH et al. (U.S. Publication 2010/0158321)
As to claim 8, Elliethy in view of Lu & Mirza discloses everything as disclosed in claim 1 but is silent to wherein the camera is positioned in a fixed location near the roadway(s).
However, SHAH’s Abstract & [0012] discloses a roadside (fixed) video camera watching a roadway and using a homography to rectify blobs and measure vehicle speed. Examiner views “fixed near roadway” as roadside camera deployments.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Elliethy in view of Lu & Mirza’s disclosure to include the above limitations in order to deploy the same alignment/homography pipeline in a common traffic monitored setup.
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 Stephen P Coleman whose telephone number is (571)270-5931. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8AM-5PM.
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, Andrew Moyer can be reached at (571) 272-9523. 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.
Stephen P. Coleman
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2675
/STEPHEN P COLEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2675
Prosecution Insights