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 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 1, 3, 6, 11, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jones (US 2023/0111754 A1).
As to claim 1, Jones discloses a non-transitory recording medium (see pars. 0010 and 0012, i.e., “memory having instructions stored”, see pars 80-81, i.e., memory 716 and storage device 718, and see figure 7) storing a program (i.e., executable instructions”, see pars 80-81, 10 and 12), the program causing a computer (see pars 80-81, i.e., processor 714) to perform operations comprising: acquiring continuous image data (see pars 32-34, i.e., video, and see figures 1, 2A and 3, i.e., video) indicating images continuously captured; and determining, based on the continuous image data, parameters for dividing (see pars 32-34, i.e., partitioning (or splitting)) the continuous image data (i.e., the video) in at least one of a width direction or a height direction of the images (see par 32, i.e., partitioning or splitting the video into multiple spatio-temporal regions. The spatial dimension may include a size (width, height) of an image patch (e.g., a portion of the image frame)) and in a time direction (see pars 32, 33 and 34, the video bounding box may also be moved temporally one frame at a time”).
As to claim 3, Jones discloses wherein the program causes the computer to perform operations comprising detecting an object captured in the images (i.e., see par 32, machines are interpreted to read on: object), and determining parameters indicating a width and a height of each of pieces of patch data based on a size of an area in the images in which the detected object is captured (see pars 32-34, i.e., width, height, horizontally and vertically).
As to claim 6, Jones discloses wherein a parameter, of the determined parameters, indicating at least one of a width or a height of one of pieces of patch data has a value different from a value of the parameter for another of the pieces of patch data at a position different from a position of the one piece of patch data in the images (see pars 0032-0034, i.e., a size (width, height) of an image patch (e.g., a portion of the image frame) and fixed step size in both horizontally and vertically, and video bounding box moved one frame at a time).
As to claim 13, Jones discloses wherein the program causes the computer to perform operations comprising detecting, based on each of pieces of patch data resulting from division of the continuous image data (see pars 32-34, i.e., partitioning or splitting the training video) using the determined parameters, an abnormality in a capturing target captured in the images (see par 0076, i.e., detect the anomaly in the input video, i.e., abnormal orientation of the robot arm, or unexpected stop of the conveyor).
As to claim 11, Jones discloses a parameter determination device, comprising: circuitry to (see figure 7, i.e., memory 716, storage 718 and processor 714, see pars. 0010 and 0012, i.e., “memory having instructions stored”, see pars 80-81, i.e., memory 716 and storage device 718, and see figure 7, i.e., executable instructions”, see pars 80-81, 10 and 12, and see pars 80-81, i.e., processor 714) acquire continuous image data (see pars 32-34, i.e., video, and see figures 1, 2A and 3, i.e., video) indicating images continuously captured, and determine, based on the continuous image data, parameters for dividing (see pars 32-34, i.e., partitioning (or splitting)) the continuous image data (i.e., the video) in at least one of a width direction or a height direction of the images (see par 32, i.e., partitioning or splitting the video into multiple spatio-temporal regions. The spatial dimension may include a size (width, height) of an image patch (e.g., a portion of the image frame)) and in a time direction (see pars 32, 33 and 34, the video bounding box may also be moved temporally one frame at a time”).
As to claim 12, Jones discloses a parameter determination method, comprising: determining, based on continuous image data (see pars 32-34, i.e., video, and see figures 1, 2A and 3, i.e., video) indicating images continuously captured, parameters for dividing (see pars 32-34, i.e., partitioning (or splitting)) the continuous image data (i.e., the video) in at least one of a width direction or a height direction of the images (see par 32, i.e., partitioning or splitting the video into multiple spatio-temporal regions. The spatial dimension may include a size (width, height) of an image patch (e.g., a portion of the image frame)) and in a time direction (see pars 32, 33 and 34, the video bounding box may also be moved temporally one frame at a time”).
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.
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 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones (US 2023/0111754 A1).
As to claim 15, Jones discloses wherein the program causes the computer to perform operations comprising displaying a screen corresponding to the piece of patch data with the abnormality detected (see par 76, i.e., video captured may correspond to abnormal orientation of the robot arm or unexpected stop of the conveyor, and see par 84, display device 730 and see figure 7 and in par 84, “the system 700 output the results of the video anomaly detection, via the imaging interface 726”).
Jones does not specifically specify that the display displaying a screen highlighting areas.
However, the examiner is taking “Official Notice” that displaying a screen highlighting areas is well known in the displaying art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jones wherein the display device (730) in figure 7, can displaying a screen highlighting areas corresponding to data with the abnormality detected.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jones to include wherein the display device (730) in figure 7, can displaying a screen highlighting areas corresponding to data with the abnormality detected, because of the following reasons: so that the operator or user can easily identify and see the highlighted areas of the abnormality detected via the display device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 14 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding dependent claim 2, the closest prior art of record, namely, Jones (US 2023/0111754 A1), discussed above, does not disclose, teach or suggest, wherein the program causes the computer to perform operations comprising calculating a second feature for each of partial areas included in the images and classifying the second feature to detect blob areas each being a set of adjacent partial areas of the partial areas, the adjacent partial areas each having the second feature classified into an identical group, and determining parameters indicating a width and a height of each of 2.
Claim 7 is objected to because claim 7 is dependent on objected to claim 2 discussed above.
Regarding dependent claim 4, the closest prior art of record, namely, Jones (US 2023/0111754 A1), discussed above, does not disclose, teach or suggest, wherein the program causes the computer to perform operations comprising selecting a period from a frequency domain representation for a trend of a third feature calculated based on the images to determine a parameter indicating a length of each of pieces of patch data in the time direction, as claimed in dependent claim 4.
Regarding dependent claim 5, the closest prior art of record, namely, Jones (US 2023/0111754 A1), discussed above, does not disclose, teach or suggest, wherein the program causes the computer to perform operations comprising tracking an object captured in the images continuously captured, and determining a parameter indicating a length of each of pieces of patch data in the time direction based on speed at which the tracked object moves in the images, as recited in dependent claim 5.
Claim 9 is objected to because claim 9 is dependent on objected to claim 5 discussed above.
Regarding dependent claim 8, the closest prior art of record, namely, Jones (US 2023/0111754 A1), discussed above, does not disclose, teach or suggest, wherein the program causes the computer to perform operations comprising compressing the continuous image data in at least one of the width direction or the height direction of the images based on the size of the area in the images in which the detected object is captured, calculating a first feature for each of the pieces of patch data resulting from division of the compressed continuous image data using the determined parameters, and detecting, based on a comparison between the calculated first feature and a reference value, an abnormality in a capturing target captured in the images, as claimed in dependent claim 8.
Regarding dependent claim 10, the closest prior art of record, namely, Jones (US 2023/0111754 A1), discussed above, does not disclose, teach or suggest, wherein the program causes the computer to perform operations comprising calculating a first feature for each of pieces of patch data resulting from division of the continuous image data using the determined parameters, calculating a degree of difference between the first feature for each of the pieces of patch data and a reference value, determining whether the calculated degree of difference exceeds a threshold, and detecting an abnormality in a capturing target captured in the images when the degree of difference is determined to be exceeding the threshold, as recited in dependent claim 10.
Regarding dependent claim 14, the closest prior art of record, namely, Jones (US 2023/0111754 A1), discussed above, does not disclose, teach or suggest, wherein the program causes the computer to perform operations comprising calculating a first feature for each of the pieces of patch data, and detecting, based on a comparison between the calculated first feature and a reference value, the abnormality in the capturing target, as claimed in dependent claim 14.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Moriya et al. (US 2014/0247876 A1) teaches partition video (see figure 1, partition video encoding unit 3), dividing the height and weight (see par 0061).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOV POPOVICI whose telephone number is (571)272-4083. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am- 4:30 pm.
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, Akwasi M. Sarpong can be reached at 571-270-3438. 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.
/DOV POPOVICI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681