DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 7-8 recite “the second set of key points and descriptors” which Examiner suggests amending to “the second set of key points and the second set of descriptors”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 11-12 recite “the second set of key points and descriptors” which Examiner suggests amending to “the second set of key points and the second set of descriptors”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 4 recites “the motion pattern is different” which Examiner suggests amending to “the motion pattern being different”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 recites “wherein obtaining the second set of key points” which Examiner suggests amending to “wherein determining the second set of key points”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 recites “wherein obtaining the second set of key points” which Examiner suggests amending to “wherein determining the second set of key points”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 9 recites “the second set of key points and descriptors” which Examiner suggests amending to “the second set of key points and the second set of descriptors”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 4 recites “the motion pattern is different” which Examiner suggests amending to “the motion pattern being different”. 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.
Claims 8, 10, 11, 15, and 16 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 8 recites the limitation "the first reference bounding box and the second reference bounding box" in Lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as there is no earlier mention of a first reference bounding box and a second reference bounding box. Examiner suggests amending claim 8 to depend on claim 7 instead (which does disclose a first reference bounding box and a second reference bounding box) and has interpreted claim 8 as such.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the operations" in Line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as there is no earlier mention of operations. Examiner suggests either deleting “the operations” or amending claim 9 to mention operations.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the operations" in Line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as there is no earlier mention of operations. Examiner suggests either deleting “the operations” or amending claim 9 to mention operations.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the operations" in Line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as there is no earlier mention of operations. Examiner suggests either deleting “the operations” or amending claim 9 to mention operations.
Claim 16 depends on claim 15 and thus is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) are: “processing unit” in claim 9.
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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, 2, 5, 9, 10, 13, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Qian et al. (US 2023/0143370).
With regards to claim 9, Qian et al. discloses an apparatus for tracking an object in one or more image frames, the apparatus comprising:
an interface hardware configured to obtain the one or more image frames (Para. 0025 lines 1-3, 0090 lines 1-3, "camera" " images");
a memory unit for storing the one or more image frames (Para. 0116 lines 1-7, 0132 lines 14-15, 0133 lines 25-34, "store…image data");
a processing unit coupled to the interface hardware and the memory unit (Para. 0014 lines 1-13, 0084 lines 1-7, 0088 lines 1-2, 0133 lines 1-12 and 25-34, "processor"), the processing unit configured to track the object in the one or more image frames (Para. 0014 lines 1-13, 0088 lines 1-2, "actions") by:
obtaining a first image frame, the first image frame including the object (Para. 0032 lines 1-2, 0061 lines 1-3, "Frame 1");
determining a first set of key points of the object in the first image frame and a first set of descriptors associated with the first set of key points (Para. 0034 lines 1-8, 0043 lines 1-9, 0064 lines 1-6, "feature points" "values of pixels" "red, green, and blue pixel values");
determining a second set of key points from the first set of key points and a second set of descriptors from the first set of the descriptors (Para. 0034 lines 1-8, 0035 lines 1-5, 0051 lines 1-8, 0052 lines 1-4, 0066 lines 1-5, 0068 lines 1-4, "matching" "values of pixels" "red, green, and blue pixel values"); and
generating a bounding box of the object based on the second set of key points and descriptors (Para. 0052 lines 1-5, "bounding box").
With regards to claim 10, Qian et al. discloses the apparatus of claim 9, the operations further comprising:
obtaining a second image frame, the second image frame including the object (Para. 0038 lines 1-6, 0063 lines 8-10, "Frame 0"),
wherein, the second set of key points have a motion pattern identified by comparing key points in the first image frame and the second image frame, the motion pattern is different from a motion pattern of another set of key points separate from the second set of key points (Para. 0040 lines 1-5, 0043 lines 6-9, 0051 lines 1-8, 0052 lines 1-4, 0063 lines 1-10, 0064 lines 1-6, 0066 lines 1-5, 0068 lines 1-4, "areas of motion").
With regards to claim 13, Qian et al. discloses the apparatus of claim 9, wherein obtaining the second set of key points from the first set of key points and the second set of descriptors from the first set of the descriptors is based on a cross check (Para. 0007 lines 7-12, 0034 lines 1-8, 0035 lines 1-5, 0051 lines 1-8, "match").
With regards to claims 1, 2, and 5, they recite the functions of the apparatus of claims 9, 10, and 13, respectively, as processes. Thus, the analyses in rejecting claims 9, 10, and 13 are equally applicable to claims 1, 2, and 5, respectively.
With regards to claims 17 and 18, they recite the apparatus of claims 9 and 10, respectively, as a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing computer instructions executable by one or more processors to perform a process for tracking an object in one or more image frames, the process comprising functions. Qian et al. discloses the non-transitory computer readable storage medium (Para. 0014 lines 1-13, 0084 lines 1-7, 0133 lines 1-12 and 25-34, "processor" "machine-readable storage device"). Thus, the analyses in rejecting claims 9 and 10 are equally applicable to claims 17 and 18, respectively.
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) 3, 11, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qian et al. (US 2023/0143370) in view of Lee et al. (US 2021/0406547).
With regards to claim 11, Qian et al. discloses the apparatus of claim 9, the operations further comprising: obtaining a second image frame, the second image frame including the object (Para. 0049 lines 1-3, 0065 lines 1-5, "Frame 2").
Qian et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the step of determining the second set of key points from the first set of key points and the second set of descriptors from the first set of descriptors is done by comparing a distance between corresponding first set of key points in the first and second image frames with a threshold.
However, Lee et al. discloses the concept of determining a second set of key points and descriptors from a first set of key points and descriptors by comparing a distance between corresponding key points in the first and second image frames with a threshold (Para. 0043 lines 1-7, 0044 lines 1-11, 0050 lines 1-5, "prior images"). While Qian et al. discloses determining a second set of key points and descriptors from the first set of key points and descriptors by comparing a similarity between corresponding key points in the first and second images frames with a threshold (see Qian et al.: Para. 0066 lines 1-5, 0068 lines 1-9, "similarity threshold"), Lee et al. teaches determining a second set of key points and descriptors from a first set of key points and descriptors by comparing a distance between corresponding key points in the first and second image frames with a threshold. In both cases, a second set of key points and descriptors are determined from the first set of key points and descriptors by comparing with a threshold.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Qian et al. to replace the technique of comparing a similarity between corresponding key points in the first and second images frames with a threshold with comparing a distance between corresponding key points in the first and second image frames with a threshold as taught by Lee et al. since one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out such a substitution and the results from the substitution would be predictable to match and determine the second set of key points from the first set of key points and the second set of descriptors from the first set of descriptors.
With regards to claim 3, it recites the functions of the apparatus of claim 11 as a process. Thus, the analysis in rejecting claim 11 is equally applicable to claim 3.
With regards to claim 19, it recites the apparatus of claim 11 as a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing computer instructions executable by one or more processors to perform a process for tracking an object in one or more image frames, the process comprising functions. Qian et al. discloses the non-transitory computer readable storage medium (Para. 0014 lines 1-13, 0084 lines 1-7, 0133 lines 1-12 and 25-34, "processor" "machine-readable storage device"). Thus, the analysis in rejecting claim 11 is equally applicable to claim 19.
Claim(s) 4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qian et al. (US 2023/0143370) in view of Bedi et al. (US 2018/0061052).
With regards to claim 12, Qian et al. discloses the apparatus of claim 9.
Qian et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the step of determining the second set of key points from the first set of key points and the second set of descriptors from the first set of the descriptors is based on a ratio test.
However, Bedi et al. discloses the concept of matching and determining a second set of points and descriptors from a first set of points and descriptors based on a ratio test in order to more accurately match or determine the second set of points and descriptors (Para. 0035 lines 1-19, "ratio test" "improves the accuracy").
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the concept of determining a second set of points and descriptors from a first set of points and descriptors based on a ratio test as taught by Bedi et al. into the apparatus of Qian et al. The motivation for this would be to more accurately determine the second set of key points and second set of descriptors.
With regards to claim 4, it recites the functions of the apparatus of claim 12 as a process. Thus, the analysis in rejecting claim 12 is equally applicable to claim 4.
Claim(s) 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qian et al. (US 2023/0143370) in view of Sun et al. (CN110443295, see translated version).
With regards to claim 14, Qian et al. discloses the apparatus of claim 9.
Qian et al. does not explicitly teach wherein obtaining the second set of key points from the first set of key points and the second set of descriptors from the first set of the descriptors is based on a grid-based motion statistic method.
However, Sun et al. discloses the concept of determining the second set of key points and descriptors from the first set of key points and descriptors based on a grid-based motion statistic method in order to filter our incorrect matches and thus more accurately obtain the second set of key points and descriptors (Para. 0037 lines 1-3, 0038 lines 1-5, "GMS" "incorrect").
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the concept of determining the second set of key points and descriptors from the first set of key points and descriptors based on a grid-based motion statistic method as taught by Sun et al. into the apparatus of Qian et al. The motivation for this would be to more accurately determine the second set of key points and descriptors.
With regards to claim 6, it recites the functions of the apparatus of claim 14 as a process. Thus, the analysis in rejecting claim 14 is equally applicable to claim 6.
Claim(s) 7, 8, 15, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qian et al. (US 2023/0143370) in view of Luo et al. (Fast and Furious: Real Time End-to-End 3D Detection, Tracking and Motion Forecasting with a Single Convolutional Net).
With regards to claim 15, Qian et al. discloses the apparatus of claim 9, the operations further comprising: obtaining a second image frame, the second image frame including the object (Para. 0049 lines 1-3, 0065 lines 1-5, "Frame 2"); obtaining a first reference bounding box of the object from the first image frame (Para. 0032 lines 1-5, 0062 lines 1-6, "bounding box"); obtaining a second reference bounding box of the object from the second image frame (Para. 0052 lines 1-4, "bounding box").
Qian et al. does not explicitly teach generating the bounding box of the object based on the first reference bounding box and the second reference bounding box.
However, Luo et al. disclose the concept of generating a bounding box of an object based on a first bounding box of a first frame and a second bounding box of a second frame in order to more accurately track the object (3.2. Model Formulation: Decoding Tracklets: Para. 1 lines 1-6 and 8-16, "bounding boxes" "averaged" "accurate tracklets").
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the concept of generating a bounding box of an object based on a first bounding box of a first frame and a second bounding box of a second frame as taught by Luo et al. into the apparatus of Qian et al. The motivation for this would be to more accurately track the object.
With regards to claim 16, the combination of Qian et al. and Luo et al. discloses the apparatus of claim 15, wherein generating the bounding box of the object based on the first reference bounding box and the second reference bounding box includes averaging a plurality of reference bounding boxes (Luo et al.: 3.2. Model Formulation: Decoding Tracklets: Para. 1 lines 8-12, "bounding boxes" "averaged").
With regards to claim 7, it recites the functions of the apparatus of claim 15 as a process. Thus, the analysis in rejecting claim 15 is equally applicable to claim 7.
With regards to claim 8, the combination of Qian et al. and Luo et al. discloses the method of claim 6 (see 112(b) rejection above on Examiner's interpretation of claim 8 being dependent on claim 7 instead), wherein generating the bounding box of the object based on the first reference bounding box and the second reference bounding box includes averaging a plurality of reference bounding boxes (Luo et al.: 3.2. Model Formulation: Decoding Tracklets: Para. 1 lines 8-12, "bounding boxes" "averaged").
With regards to claim 20, it recites the apparatus of claim 15 as a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing computer instructions executable by one or more processors to perform a process for tracking an object in one or more image frames, the process comprising functions. Qian et al. discloses the non-transitory computer readable storage medium (Para. 0014 lines 1-13, 0084 lines 1-7, 0133 lines 1-12 and 25-34, "processor" "machine-readable storage device"). Thus, the analysis in rejecting claim 15 is equally applicable to claim 20.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Applicants are directed to consider additional pertinent prior art included on the Notice of References Cited (PTOL 892) attached herewith.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAROL W CHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5766. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-3:30 M-F.
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, Sumati Lefkowitz can be reached at (571) 272-3638. 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.
/CAROL W CHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2672