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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/20/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 4, --at least one-- should be inserted before “image”
In claim 12, line 7, “a single” should be changed to --the single--
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. Specifically, claim 14 is directed to a computer program, or a computer readable storage medium, or a data signal. None of these are directed to any of the four statutory categories of invention, See MPEP 2106.03(I).
As the courts' definitions of machines, manufactures and compositions of matter indicate, a product must have a physical or tangible form in order to fall within one of these statutory categories. Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1348, 111 USPQ2d at 1719. Thus, the Federal Circuit has held that a product claim to an intangible collection of information, even if created by human effort, does not fall within any statutory category. Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1350, 111 USPQ2d at 1720 (claimed "device profile" comprising two sets of data did not meet any of the categories because it was neither a process nor a tangible product). Similarly, software expressed as code or a set of instructions detached from any medium is an idea without physical embodiment. See Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 550 U.S. 437, 449, 82 USPQ2d 1400, 1407 (2007); see also Benson, 409 U.S. 67, 175 USPQ2d 675 (An "idea" is not patent eligible). Thus, a product claim to a software program that does not also contain at least one structural limitation (such as a "means plus function" limitation) has no physical or tangible form, and thus does not fall within any statutory category.
As per the computer readable storage medium portion of claim 14, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a computer readable storage medium encompasses both non-transitory mediums such as disk drives, but also encompasses transitory mediums such as signals per se, signals transmitted over free space, through copper wire, or through optical fibers. A transitory signal, while physical and real, does not possess concrete structure that would qualify as a device or part under the definition of a machine, is not a tangible article or commodity under the definition of a manufacture (even though it is man-made and physical in that it exists in the real world and has tangible causes and effects), and is not composed of matter such that it would qualify as a composition of matter. Nuijten, 500 F.3d at 1356-1357, 84 USPQ2d at 1501-03. As such, a transitory, propagating signal does not fall within any statutory category. Mentor Graphics Corp. v. EVE-USA, Inc., 851 F.3d 1275, 1294, 112 USPQ2d 1120, 1133 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Nuijten, 500 F.3d at 1356-1357, 84 USPQ2d at 1501-03.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Deng et al “Skeleton Model Based Behavior Recognition for Pedestrians and Cyclists from Vehicle Scene Camera”, hereinafter referred to as “Deng et al.”
As per claim 14, Deng et al teaches a computer program, or a computer readable storage medium, or a data signal comprising instructions, which upon execution by a data processing device cause the device to perform one, some, or all of the steps of a method, the method comprising: recording at least one image frame of the subject using an imaging device, see Deng et al, pages 1294-1296 under “IV. POSE ESTIMATION AND TRACKING ALGORITHM” where frames of data are saved and processed via pose estimation and tracking algorithms.
The remainder of claim 14, namely the “determining an output pose of interest by processing the image frame using a machine learning model that comprises a rule-based pose inference model and a data-driven pose inference model, wherein with the data-driven pose inference model, determining a data-driven pose of interest by processing a single image frame of the subject, and wherein with the rule-based pose inference model, determining a rule-based output pose of interest by processing the same single image frame; and determining as the output pose of interest the rule-based output pose of interest, if the rule- based pose inference model is able to determine the rule-based output pose of interest, otherwise determining the data-driven pose of interest as the output pose of interest” is not given patentable weight by virtue of the preamble optionally limiting the device to performing one step only (“cause the device to perform one, some, or all of the steps of a method”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-13 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious the instant combination in a method for detecting an output pose of interest of a subject in real-time, the method comprising: recording at least one image frame of the subject using an imaging device; determining an output pose of interest by processing the image frame using a machine learning model that comprises a rule-based pose inference model and a data-driven pose inference model, wherein with the data-driven pose inference model, determining a data-driven pose of interest by processing a single image frame of the subject, and wherein with the rule-based pose inference model, determining a rule-based output pose of interest by processing the same single image frame; and determining as the output pose of interest the rule-based output pose of interest, if the rule-based pose inference model is able to determine the rule-based output pose of interest, otherwise determining the data-driven pose of interest as the output pose of interest. Emphasis added.
Independent claims 10, 11, and 12 are allowed, mutatis mutandis, for reasoning similar to independent claim 1 above.
Dependent claims 2-9 and 13 are allowable by virtue of their dependency upon allowed independent claims.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited prior art is indicative of the state-of-the-art surrounding image recognition of pedestrians and driver posture via the use of deep learning.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID OMETZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7593. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8am-4pm.
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.
DAVID OMETZ
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2672
/DAVID OMETZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2672