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 .
Priority
This application is the Continuation of International Application No. PCT/CN2022/108123 filed on 07/27/2022.
Drawings
The 7-page drawings have been considered and placed on record in the file.
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.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 limitations are: “collection module”, “extraction module”, “expansion module”, “tracking module”, and “generation module” relevant to Claim 8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/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 it/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 it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter as follows.
Claim 16 recites “A computer-readable storage medium with a computer program stored thereon, wherein, when being executed by the processor, the computer program implements the steps in the target object tracking method of claim 1”. Computer programs, per se, are not in one of the statutory categories of invention because a computer program is merely a set of instructions capable of being executed by a computer - the computer program itself is not a process. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a computer-readable storage medium also comprises transitory forms of signal transmission, signals per se, such as a propagating electrical or electromagnetic signal or carrier wave which is not one of the statutory categories of invention. MPEP § 2106. The Examiner suggests that Claims 16-20 should be rephrased as: "A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium with a computer program stored thereon…” to overcome this rejection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-15 are allowed. The following is the examiner’s stated reason for indication of allowable subject matter: regarding Claim 1, Hicks (US 20190387185 A1) teaches "A target object tracking method, wherein the method comprises: collecting a point cloud data sequence in a target scene by radars"; (Hicks, Paras. 4 and 63, teaches generating dense 3D point clouds to track the movement of objects as points in that cloud wherein a lidar system or radar is used to capture frames of the surrounding environment to send a sequence of point clouds or point cloud changes over time so that a motion vector can be associated with each point in the point cloud, i.e., target object tracking method which collects point cloud data sequence in a scene by radars).
In an analogous field of endeavor, Georgis et al. (US 20230222677 A1) teaches "and extracting a first frame of point cloud data from the point cloud data sequence"; (Georgis, Claim 1, teaches generating a 3D point cloud sequence based on image data and extracting motion information associated with the one or more objects to determine a first set of 3D points of a first point cloud frame with respect to a second set of 3D points of a second point cloud frame based on the extracted motion information wherein the first point cloud frame and the second point cloud frame are consecutive frames of the 3D point cloud sequence, i.e., extract a first frame of point cloud data from the point cloud data sequence).
Hicks further teaches "wherein the point cloud data sequence has at least two frames of point cloud data"; (Hicks, Paras. 21 and 63, teaches a pedestrian may be tracked through multiple frames as the vehicle moves past the pedestrian wherein the controller sends a sequence of point clouds or point cloud changes over time so that a motion vector can be associated with each point in the point cloud, i.e., the point cloud sequence has multiple or at least two frames of point cloud data).
In an analogous field of endeavor, Zhang et al. (US 20240290059 A1) teaches "determining a bounding box of a target object in the first frame of point cloud data using a preset three-dimensional target tracking algorithm according to the target"; (Zhang, Paras. 6 and 37, teaches generating a 3D bounding box using a trajectory prediction network to enclose an object depicted in the scene in its respective point cloud wherein each 3D bonding box can track an object across different point clouds of different frames with each of the point clouds corresponding to different time stamps wherein a scene sensing module can track an object enclosed by a 3D bounding box using a SiamMask tracking technique and even combine the SiamMask tracking technique with a trajectory prediction network for robust position correction during tracking, i.e., determine a bounding box of a target object in a frame of point cloud data using a preset 3D tracking algorithm according to the target being the SiamMask tracking technique with the trajectory prediction network).
In an analogous field of endeavor, Huang et al. (CN 114612529 B) teaches "and extracting all target point clouds in the bounding box to generate a first template point cloud"; (Huang, Claims 1-2, teaches acquiring original point cloud data corresponding to a target object and determining at least one group of template point cloud data from the original point cloud data, i.e., extract target point clouds to generate a first template point cloud).
In an analogous field of endeavor, Xiong et al. (CN 116430338 A), Claim 4, teaches forming a first template point cloud and obtaining a predicted bounding box by the Kalman filter and expanding the bounding box by K time to obtain the search point cloud for the given frame wherein feature description is performed on the search point cloud and the frame template point cloud wherein rough conversion is performed on the template point cloud in which tracking and judging the frame rough prediction point cloud is performed and a final template point cloud i is obtained as opposed to a template point cloud being expanded based on a first template point cloud and the bounding box containing the target point clouds in order to obtain a second template point cloud.. Therefore, Xiong does not explicitly teach "based on the first template point cloud, performing a template expansion processing using a preset adaptive template generation algorithm based on the bounding box to obtain a second template point cloud".
In an analogous field of endeavor, Cao et al. (CN 110969648 B) teaches "extracting point cloud features in a search area of other frames of point cloud data in the point cloud data sequence"; (Cao, Claim 1, teaches a 3D target tracking method based on point cloud sequence data wherein a feature extraction network is used for extracting features of the template point cloud and the search point cloud so as to respectively obtain template point cloud features and search point cloud features, i.e., extract point cloud features in a search area of frame of point cloud data in the point cloud data sequence).
In an analogous field of endeavor, Hu et al. (CN 109309813 A), Pg. 6 Para. 1, teaches a tracking robot with features of the target-tracking template already known in advance wherein a plurality of target features are extracted from the plurality of target point cloud data in which each extracted target feature is compared with a feature of a target template for matching to identify a tracking target from each target as opposed to generating a tracking result for the object in the point cloud data sequence by comparing the extracted point cloud features with a second expanded template point cloud and an additional reference template point cloud that corresponds to the target object for the comparison result. Therefore, Hu does not explicitly teach "and comparing the point cloud features with the second template point cloud and a reference template point cloud corresponding to the target object to obtain a comparison result; and generating a tracking result of the target object in the point cloud data sequence based on the comparison result and displaying the tracking result”.
However, none of the cited prior art references alone or in combination teach the ordered combination of limitations of "based on the first template point cloud, performing a template expansion processing using a preset adaptive template generation algorithm based on the bounding box to obtain a second template point cloud; and comparing the point cloud features with the second template point cloud and a reference template point cloud corresponding to the target object to obtain a comparison result; and generating a tracking result of the target object in the point cloud data sequence based on the comparison result and displaying the tracking result" with the rest of the claim limitations. Claims 2-7 are dependent upon Claim 1. Claim 8 is an electronic device with elements corresponding to the steps recited in Claim 1. Claims 9-15 recite an electronic apparatus with a memory, processor, and a computer program with elements corresponding to claims 1-7 respectively. Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, but the claims recite a computer-readable storage medium storing a program with instructions corresponding to the steps recited in claims 1-5 respectively. Therefore, Claims 2-20 contain the above indicated allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW STEVEN BUDISALICH whose telephone number is (703)756-5568. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am-5:00pm EST.
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, Amandeep Saini can be reached on (571) 272-3382. 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.
/ANDREW S BUDISALICH/Examiner, Art Unit 2662
/AMANDEEP SAINI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2662