Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/419,542

TRACKING SPARSE OBJECTS AND PEOPLE IN LARGE SCALE ENVIRONMENTS

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Jan 22, 2024
Examiner
CHANG, DANIEL CHEOLJIN
Art Unit
2669
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
New York University
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
89%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 89% — above average
89%
Career Allow Rate
117 granted / 132 resolved
+26.6% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+11.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
25 currently pending
Career history
157
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
8.1%
-31.9% vs TC avg
§103
53.4%
+13.4% vs TC avg
§102
14.1%
-25.9% vs TC avg
§112
20.7%
-19.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 132 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 . Notice to Applicants This communication is in response to the Application filed on 3/11/2024. Claims 3-22 are pending. Claim 1 and 2 have been cancelled. Claim Objections Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 1, line 2, “the speed of an object” should be changed to “a speed of an object”. In claim 1, line 11, “a speed of the object” should be changed to “the speed of the object”. 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. Claim 6, 7, 9, 14, 18 and 20 are 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. Claim 6 recites the limitation "the imaging sensor" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Clarification/explanation is required. Claim 7 recites the limitation "the imaging sensor" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Clarification/explanation is required. Claim 9 recites the limitation "the imaging sensor" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Clarification/explanation is required. Claim 14 recites the limitation "the imaging sensor" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Clarification/explanation is required. With respect to claim 18, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 6, are applicable. With respect to claim 20, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 9, are applicable. 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. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 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 3, 4, 9, 13, 15, 16, 20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng et al. (U.S Publication No. 2017/0048441) (hereafter, "Deng") in view of OH (KR 101408118B1). Regarding claim 3, Deng teaches a computer-implemented method for determining the speed of an object ([0021] the processor 106 may calculate a speed of the selected object as well as a speed threshold in response to one or more of the plurality of frames 118, 120, 122), the computer-implemented method comprising: a) signaling an imaging sensor exposure using a first time period ([0022] The processor 106 may then use a determined illuminance and the target exposure value to set an exposure time for one or more next frames) … c) identifying two of the at least two instances of the object in the image frame ([0023] The processor 106 may determine a first bounding box 142 around the object 140 in the first frame 118 and a second bounding box 144 around the object 140 in the second frame 120. The processor 106 may determine the bounding boxes 142, 144 by using object detection and recognition techniques to identify the object 140 and determining the bounding boxes 142, 144 as bounding boxes centered around the object 140. If the object 140 moves relative to the camera 112 within the image capture plane of the camera 112 between T0 and T1, the bounding boxes 142, 144 may have different positions in the image capture plane); d) determining a speed of the object ([0021] the processor 106 may calculate a speed of the selected object as well as a speed threshold in response to one or more of the plurality of frames 118, 120, 122) using (1) a pixel difference between the two instances of the object identified in image frame and ([0023] The processor 106 may determine a first speed 126 of the object at the first time by determining a pixel difference between a first position of the object 140 in the first frame 118 and a second position of the object 140 in the second frame 120 (e.g., by determining a difference between coordinates of the first bounding box 142 and coordinates of the second bounding box 144)). Deng does not expressly teach b) activating a secondary shutter at least twice within the first time period to generate an image frame having at least two instances of the object … (2) a time difference between the secondary shutter activations corresponding to the two instances of the object identified in the image frame. However, OH teaches b) activating a secondary shutter at least twice within the first time period to generate an image frame having at least two instances of the object ([0071] the camera control unit (170) opens the shutter twice in succession for at least two consecutive shots faster than the inherent output speed of the image sensor (e.g., 2 ms). The second shutter opens before the second light turns on; [0075] FIG. 5 is an example diagram showing a photograph taken when a subject (e.g., a golf ball) moves at 85 m/s; [0082] the number of times continuous shooting can be performed within the above-mentioned unique shooting time is described as 2, but the number of times continuous shooting can be performed may increase further depending on requirements such as the internal memory capacity of the image sensor unit (110), exposure interval, and unique shooting time) … (2) a time difference between the secondary shutter activations corresponding to the two instances of the object identified in the image frame ([0058] the time difference for acquiring high-speed images can be controlled by controlling the lighting on/off time interval of the lighting ... the time difference of high-speed images shot continuously when a trigger signal is generated can be controlled; [0059] the camera control unit (170) has the effect of enabling continuous shooting at a speed (e.g., 0.4 ms) faster than the shooting time determined by the image sensor's unique output speed (e.g., 2 ms) through time difference control of high-speed video using the lighting; [0054] The above image processing unit (150) calculates physical characteristic information such as the moving speed ... of the moving subject based on the image information acquired through the high-speed shooting and the characteristic information (e.g., subject characteristic information) of the initially shot image (e.g., still image); [0048] the subject movement detection unit (130) detects the movement of the subject by using the degree of change in the pixel value of the subject and the degree of change in the outer background of the subject). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method and device of Deng to incorporate the step/system of triggering the shutter multiple times during an exposure time to capture the subject in several positions within one frame and calculating a speed of the subject by using time difference between high-speed captures and the degree of change in the pixel value of the subject taught by OH. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to improve the accuracy of physical characteristic information of a fast-moving subject ([0105] the present invention enables a high-speed photographing system having the same or similar specifications as a camera using an expensive high-speed image sensor by using a relatively inexpensive low-speed image sensor, and further enables accurate acquisition of physical characteristic information of a subject moving faster than the speed of the subject that can be acquired using a plurality of cameras in the past, and further enables more accurate acquisition of image information of a fast-moving subject, and further enables detection of the movement of a subject and high-speed image shooting through a single camera by changing the image sensor driving method, and has the effect of enabling acquisition of physical characteristic information of a subject by a camera system alone). 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 predicted results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Deng with OH to obtain the invention as specified in claim 3. Regarding claim 4, the combination of Deng and OH teaches all the limitations of claim 3 above. OH teaches wherein the imaging sensor exposure has a duration of less than 1 ms ([0074] With the above two shutter openings, two images are captured consecutively in a very short time (e.g., 0.4 ms)). Regarding claim 9, the combination of Deng and OH teaches all the limitations of claim 3 above. OH teaches wherein the first time period begins right before a start of a first of n activations of the secondary shutter, where n is at least 2, and ([0071] the camera control unit (170) opens the shutter twice in succession for at least two consecutive shots faster than the inherent output speed of the image sensor (e.g., 2 ms). The second shutter opens before the second light turns on) a corresponding imaging sensor activation ends right after a last of the n activations of the secondary shutter ([0080] after turning on the light with the shutter open, the shutter is closed when the light is in the turned off state, and immediately before the first lighting cycle (T1) ends, the light is turned on again with the shutter open) whereby the imaging sensor is active during all n consecutive activations of the secondary shutter during the first time period ([0071] the camera control unit (170) opens the shutter twice in succession for at least two consecutive shots faster than the inherent output speed of the image sensor (e.g., 2 ms)). Regarding claim 13, the combination of Deng and OH teaches all the limitations of claim 3 above. OH teaches wherein the two of the at least two instances of the object identified in the image frame are separated by at least a size of the object ([0085] That is, as shown in Fig. 6, when the subject's movement speed increases or the camera's field of view narrows while 6 shots are possible, the number of shots may decrease to 4 or 2, and also, when the subject's movement speed decreases or the camera's field of view widens, the number of shots may increase to 8; FIG. 6 shows two instances of the object are separated by at least a size of the object). With respect to claim 15, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 3, are applicable. With respect to claim 16, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 4, are applicable. With respect to claim 20, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 9, are applicable. With respect to claim 22, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 13, are applicable. Claim 6, 7 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng et al. (U.S Publication No. 2017/0048441) (hereafter, "Deng") in view of OH (KR 101408118B1) and further in view of Ardo et al. (U.S Publication No. 2019/0141251) (hereafter, "Ardo"). Regarding claim 6, the combination of Deng and OH teaches all the limitations of claim 3 above. The combination of Deng and OH does not expressly teach wherein the secondary shutter is arranged between (1) a zoomed camera including the imaging sensor and (2) an adjustment mechanism for adjusting a narrow field of view of the zoomed camera. However, Ardo teaches wherein the secondary shutter is arranged between (1) a zoomed camera including the imaging sensor and ([0042] As shown in FIG. 2, camera 110 may include a housing 202, shutter 204, lens assembly 206, sensor array 208; [0044] Shutter 204 provides an opening for light to reach lens assembly 206; [0045] lens assembly 206 may include a set of magnification lenses for performing an optical zoom) (2) an adjustment mechanism for adjusting a narrow field of view of the zoomed camera ([0042] As shown in FIG. 2, camera 110 may include a housing 202, shutter 204, lens assembly 206, sensor array 208, chassis 210, actuators 212, and controller 214; [0045] lens assembly 206 may include a set of magnification lenses for performing an optical zoom; [0043] housing 202 contains shutter 204, lens assembly 206, sensor array 208, and chassis 210 … housing 202 may include actuators 212 and controller 214; [0049] actuators 212 may change, for example, the magnification of lens assembly 206, modify the location of image plane of lens assembly 206 by repositioning one or more of the lenses, and/or change the size of the opening of shutter 204 to admit more or less light). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method and device of Deng and OH to incorporate the step/system of arranging the shutter between the zoomed camera and the actuators controlling the magnification of lens assembly which performing an optical zoom taught by Ardo. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to improve the image quality ([0001] As cameras and monitoring devices proliferate, manufacturers are designing and incorporating many features into such devices, to aid users to capture high-quality images; [0033] providing both digital zoom and optical zoom jointly, the camera may also avoid the abrupt transition from a digital zoom to an optical zoom (e.g., when additional digital zooming would otherwise degrade the image quality)). 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 predicted results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Deng and OH with Ardo to obtain the invention as specified in claim 6. Regarding claim 7, the combination of Deng and OH teaches all the limitations of claim 3 above. Ardo teaches wherein the secondary shutter is arranged between (1) a zoomed camera including the imaging sensor and ([0042] As shown in FIG. 2, camera 110 may include a housing 202, shutter 204, lens assembly 206, sensor array 208; [0044] Shutter 204 provides an opening for light to reach lens assembly 206; [0045] lens assembly 206 may include a set of magnification lenses for performing an optical zoom) (2) an adjustable mirror for adjusting a narrow field of view of the zoomed camera ([0042] As shown in FIG. 2, camera 110 may include a housing 202, shutter 204, lens assembly 206, sensor array 208, chassis 210, actuators 212, and controller 214; [0045] Lens assembly 206 may include different types of lenses (e.g., convex, concave, reflective, etc.) … lens assembly 206 may include a set of magnification lenses for performing an optical zoom; [0049] actuators 212 may change, for example, the magnification of lens assembly 206, modify the location of image plane of lens assembly 206 by repositioning one or more of the lenses, and/or change the size of the opening of shutter 204 to admit more or less light). With respect to claim 18, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 6, are applicable. Claim 8, 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng et al. (U.S Publication No. 2017/0048441) (hereafter, "Deng") in view of OH (KR 101408118B1) and further in view of KIM et al. (U.S Publication No. 2017/0257568) (hereafter, "KIM"). Regarding claim 8, the combination of Deng and OH teaches all the limitations of claim 3 above. OH teaches wherein the secondary shutter is activated n times, where n is at least two, within the first time period, and ([0082] the number of times continuous shooting can be performed within the above-mentioned unique shooting time is described as 2, but the number of times continuous shooting can be performed may increase further depending on requirements such as the internal memory capacity of the image sensor unit (110), exposure interval, and unique shooting time). OH does not expressly teach wherein a period between activations of the secondary shutter is equal to the first time period divided by n. However, KIM teaches wherein a period between activations of the secondary shutter is equal to the first time period divided by n ([0014] The image acquirer may acquire high-speed images in a multiple exposure mode by repeatedly operating the first shutter and the second shutter N times at regular time intervals while one image frame is acquired). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method and device of Deng and OH to incorporate the step/system of executing N shutter cycles at steady intervals to capture high-speed multi-exposure images taught by KIM. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide a cost-effective solution for a fast-moving object analysis by eliminating the need for external motion sensors and improving the precision of calculation of the object's velocity ([0003] Without using a separate motion recognition sensor, an expensive high-speed camera, or a separate flash lamp device, the apparatus and method may automatically recognize the movement of a sports ball, automatically capture high-speed images of the moving ball, and automatically analyze movement information, including a movement velocity and direction of the sports ball, the force and axis of rotation of the ball, and the like). 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 predicted results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Deng and OH with KIM to obtain the invention as specified in claim 8. Regarding claim 10, the combination of Deng and OH teaches all the limitations of claim 3 above. KIM teaches wherein a period between activations of the secondary shutter is greater than a duration of the imaging sensor exposure ([0014] The image acquirer may acquire high-speed images in a multiple exposure mode by repeatedly operating the first shutter and the second shutter N times at regular time intervals while one image frame is acquired). With respect to claim 19, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 8, are applicable. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 5, 11, 12, 17 and 21 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. Claim 14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL C. CHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1277. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday and Alternate Fridays 8:00-5:00. 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, Chan S. Park can be reached at (571) 272-7409. 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. /DANIEL C CHANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2669 /CHAN S PARK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2669
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 22, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 11, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 10, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12592097
REAL-TIME, FINE-RESOLUTION HUMAN INTRA-GAIT PATTERN RECOGNITION BASED ON DEEP LEARNING MODELS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12579672
STEREO VISION-BASED HEIGHT CLEARANCE DETECTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12573047
Control Method, Device, Equipment and Storage Medium for Interactive Reproduction of Target Object
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12548296
Spatially Preserving Flattening in Deep Learning Neural Networks
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12541868
Image Registration Method and Apparatus, Electronic Apparatus, and Storage Medium
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
89%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+11.7%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 132 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month