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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding amended claim 1, applicant argued that Su teach using Kalman filter to maintain Mahalanobis distance but not “impose a limit on a range of variation in an index of the Kalman filters that influences tracking of the detection target.” Applicant further argued that Su fails to teach amended limitation because “even if the Mahalanobis distance calculated can be maintained within an appropriate range as described in Su, unless imposing a lower limit on the Mahalanobis distance as in amended independent claim 1, Applicant respectfully submits that the above processing described in paragraph [0061] of the Publication cannot be performed.”
However, examiner respectfully disagrees. First off, the argued claim does not limit “impose a limit on a range of variation” directly corresponding to either “Mahalanobis distance” or “impose a lower limit.” Although it’s well-known in the art that Mahalanobis Distance computes the distance between a measurement and the predicted distribution (defined by Kalman filter mean and covariance) to identify outliers, perform data association, and enable adaptive/robust filtering, “a limit on a range of variation” related to Kalman filter would be broad for one of ordinary skill in the art to interpret. Su’s teaching would fit in despite Su’s objective may or may not be aligned to applicant’s intended interpretation. Similarly, Park also teach tracking a change value within a certain range (paragraphs 0046, 0071), which would also fits “a range of variation” as it has no specific definition/limitation imposed.
Second off, the argument “even if the Mahalanobis distance calculated can be maintained within an appropriate range as described in Su, unless imposing a lower limit on the Mahalanobis distance as in amended independent claim 1, Applicant respectfully submits that the above processing described in paragraph [0061] of the Publication cannot be performed” is confusing. It seems applicant acknowledged that Su does imposing a lower limit on the Mahalanobis distance otherwise Su’s operation in paragraph 0061 would not work.
Thus, rejection is proper and maintained.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su et al. (US2022/0383535) in view of Park et al. (KR20200088618).
To claim 1, Su teach an object tracking device comprising:
an input interface (403 of Fig. 4) configured to acquire sensor data (paragraphs 0025, 0074),
a processor (401 of Fig. 4) configured to
detect a detection target from the sensor data (paragraph 0021),
track the detection target using Kalman filters associated with each of the detection target and an observed value (paragraphs 0026, 0028, each object trajectory corresponds to one Kalman filter, wherein the Kalman filter is initialized in accordance with the object detection box where the object occurs for the first time, and after the matching has been completed for each image, the Kalman filter is modified in accordance with the matched object detection box, such that object detection box position would be considered an observed value), and
impose a limit on a range of variation in an index of the Kalman filters that influences tracking of the detection target (paragraph 0031, maintain the Mahalanobis distance between the object detection box and the object tracking box obtained through the improved formula within an appropriate range even when a movement state of the object changes dramatically, which obviously shows a limit on a range of variation); and
an output interface (404 of Fig. 4) configured to output a detection result regarding the detection target (paragraph 0055, to obtain information such as a position, an identity, a movement state and a historical trajectory of the object),
wherein the index includes a Mahalanobis distance used to associate the Kalman filters with the observed value (paragraphs 0029-0031, Mahalanobis distance used to associate the Kalman filters with the observed value) and
the processor is configured to impose a lower limit on the Mahalanobis distance (paragraphs 0007, 0011, as an the Mahalanobis distance being maintained within an appropriate range, a lower limit is obviously imposed).
In furthering said obviousness, Park teach an object tracking device tracks position of a moving object through Kalman filtering, wherein fluctuation is tracked within a certain range (paragraphs 0046, 0071).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Park into the apparatus of Su, in order to further implementation of Kalman filter.
Claim(s) 2, 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su et al. (US2022/0383535) in view of Park et al. (KR20200088618) and Palma-Amestoy et al. (US2013/0144568).
To claim 2, Su and Park teach claim 1.
But, Su and Park do not expressly disclose wherein the index further includes at least one selected from the group consisting of a radius of a grouping area used to associate the Kalman filters with the detection target, and a size of an error ellipse of the Kalman filters.
Palma-Amestoy teach Kalman filter using a Mahalanobis distance and a radius of scan/detection circle (paragraphs 0051, 0057), which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate into the apparatus of Su and Park, in order to further Kalman filter operation implementation by design preference.
To claim 4, Su, Park and Palma-Amestoy teach claim 2.
Su, Park and Palma-Amestoy teach wherein the index includes the radius of the grouping area, and the processor is configured to impose an upper limit and/or a lower limit on the radius of the grouping area according to observation noise and/or a distance to the detection target (Palma-Amestoy, paragraphs 0012-0013).
To claim 5, Su, Park and Palma-Amestoy teach claim 2.
Su, Park and Palma-Amestoy teach wherein the index includes the size of the error ellipse, and the processor is configured to impose a lower limit on the size of the error ellipse according to an accuracy to be guaranteed for the detection result regarding the detection target (Parent claim 2 makes it clear that only one of two limitations is needed. Since the limitation a radius of a grouping area used to associate the Kalman filters with the detection target in said parent claim 2 is already addressed above, further limiting with another limitation of said parent claim 2 adds nothing to said already addressed limitation. In view of the broadest reasonable interpretation, limitation of instant claim is considered rejected in further defining said parent claim 2).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ZHIYU LU whose telephone number is (571)272-2837. The examiner can normally be reached Weekdays: 8:30AM - 5:00PM.
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, Stephen R Koziol can be reached at (408) 918-7630. 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.
ZHIYU . LU
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2669
/ZHIYU LU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2665 March 7, 2026