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 § 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 3-4, 8, 13-14, 18-20 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.
Claims 3 and 13 recite the limitation “wherein matching the M tracks to N tracks comprises…”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as no step of matching has been previously recited. The way in which this limitation is written in claims 3 and 13 appears to suggest that some step of matching has been established and that the claims are intended to further limit that requirement. However, the claims do not establish matching tracks before attempting to further limit the matching. The claims are further indefinite because it is unclear as to what the matching refers, and what Applicant’s intends for it to mean. That is to say, the metes and bounds of the matching step required in the claims are not defined in that claims. For purposes of examination, the step of matching tracks will be interpreted as associating in some way one or more of M tracks with one or more N tracks.
Claims 4 and 14 recite the limitation “wherein the Hungarian algorithm penalizes matches between a pair of tracks”, which is indefinite because there is no definition in the claim for penalizing matches or how it is achieved by the apparatus and method claimed. Looking to the instant specification, there appears to be only one recitation of the limitation at issue, at par. 0116 which recites “For example, the cost matrix values can be determined to penalize matches between tracks with a short overlap duration…or a short distance traveled, or both.” Neither the claims nor the specification provide a clear definition as to what the limitation of penalizing matches entails or how it is achieved. A broadest reasonable interpretation will be applied, however, the concept of penalization relating to data processing carries multiple implications, meanings, and processing requirements that do not appear to be readily supported by the instant specification, requiring extensive supposition for examination. For purposes of examination, the limitation at issue will be given a generalization to the best of the Examiner’s ability based on a broadest reasonable interpretation, as a form of data calibration and/or correction (e.g. minimizing or maximizing values).
Claims 8, 18 and 20 recites the limitation “…that outputs any un-matched objects of the multiple objects [as in claims 18 and 20] to a world model [as in all claims]”, which is indefinite because the claims offer no definition of what un-matched is intended to mean or how it is determined, and because the claims offer no definition of what a world model is or how it is determined. For purposes of examination, the limitations at issue will be interpreted as an object associated with only one track (such as in claim 8) and that the objects are represented by some mapping process that indicates their presence in a detection environment.
Claim 19 recites limitations that require both synchronously outputting position information and outputting the position information asynchronously, which is indefinite because it is unclear how the position information is intended to be output both synchronously and asynchronously. The claim does not define the terms at issue and does not set forth enough detail of what is expected of the method to achieve the limitations claimed. For purposes of examination, the limitations will be interpreted as generally outputting position information, as such would inherently be achieved either synchronously or asynchronously.
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.
(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) 1-4, 6-8, 10-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim (US 2023/0020920).
1 and 11 and 20 mutatis mutandis: Hwan discloses an apparatus, comprising:
a processor configured to:
receive position information for multiple objects within a portion of a vehicle transportation network, the position information obtained from multiple sensors within the portion of the vehicle transportation network [0042-43 vehicle includes one or more sensors that obtain information on the location of a target object located in the vicinity of the vehicle];
determine, using the position information of a respective sensors of the multiple sensors, a respective track for objects of the multiple objects [0044 teaches obtaining sensor tracks from each sensor to generate an association cost matrix of sensor tracks with respect to reference tracks; 0084 teaches an information index on a plurality of sensors allocated to first to M reference tracks in the form of an association map];
determine respective similarity measures for multiple tracks, wherein the multiple tracks comprise at least a first track determined using the position information of a first sensor of the multiple sensors and a second track determined using the position information of a second sensor of the multiple sensors [0059 teaches detecting an object based on a detection point input to sensors and generate sensor track information based on the detected object; sensor tracks are generated from corresponding sensors; 0060 teaches sensors tracks with respect to reference tracks in a matrix form; association relationship between reference track and sensor track is a numerical value indicating various characteristics such as distance between tracks, size of an overlap area, size of a total area, and similarity between track box sizes]; and
determine, based on the similarity measures, a tracked object track for a tracked object of the multiple objects [0059 teaches detecting an object based on a detection point input to sensors and generate sensor track information based on the detected object; additionally 0091-96 and fig. 8].
Additionally from claim 20: Kim discloses outputting the position information to an object fusion and tracking module that outputs any un-matched objects of the multiple objects to a world module as separate objects, wherein an un-matched object is an object associated with only one track [0016, 0043 teaches an object associated with one sensor track]; and
outputting tracks for those of the multiple sensors forming the tracked object track to the object fusion and tracking module to output matched objects of the multiple objects to the world model as a single object [0060, 0085-0092 teach sensor information fusion (including track information); at least 0095-96 teach an association map].
2 and 12 mutatis mutandis: Kim discloses to determine the respective track for objects of the multiple objects comprises to determine M tracks for the first sensor and to determine N tracks for the second sensor, to determine respective similarity measures for multiple tracks comprises to compare the M tracks to N tracks by minimizing difference values between points along the M tracks and the N tracks, and M and N are positive integers greater than or equal to one [0083-97; fig. 7 and 8].
3 and 13 mutatis mutandis: Kim discloses to match the M tracks to N tracks comprises performing a Hungarian algorithm with the M tracks and the N tracks as input, and minimizing the difference values comprises minimizing a sum of squared differences [0018 and 0075-76 teach applying Hungarian algorithm; 0094].
4 and 14 mutatis mutandis: Kim discloses the Hungarian algorithm penalizes matches between the multiple tracks having at least one of an overlap duration below a defined duration or distance traveled below a defined distance [0008-10, 0060, 0067].
6 and 15 mutatis mutandis: Kim discloses calibrating a sensor of the multiple sensors by determining a rigid body transform that minimizes difference values between a track of the M tracks from the sensor and a corresponding tracked object track [rigid body transformation is also known as Euclidian transformation; Kim discloses Euclidian Distance at 0065; rigid body transformation preserves Euclidean distance between points; therefore, rigid body transform would be achievable from Euclidian distance information].
7 and 17 mutatis mutandis: Kim discloses the multiple sensors comprise at least two of a global positioning system signal of an object of the multiple objects, an infrastructure sensor mounted within the portion of the vehicle transportation network, or an optical, an infrared, or a light detection and ranging (lidar) sensor of an object of the multiple objects [0042-43 teaches various sensor characteristics].
8: Kim discloses the processor is configured to output the position information to an object fusion and tracking module that outputs any un-matched objects of the multiple objects to a world model as separate objects, wherein an un-matched object is an object associated with only one track [0016, 0043 teaches an object associated with one sensor track, 0060, 0085-0092 teach sensor information fusion (including track information); at least 0095-96 teach an association map].
10: Kim discloses to determine, based on the similarity measures, the tracked object track for the tracked object of the multiple objects comprises to fuse position information of a pair of tracks forming the tracked object track [0060, 0085-0092 teach sensor information fusion].
16: Kim discloses determining respective similarity measures for multiple tracks, wherein the multiple tracks comprise determining respective similarity measures for pairs of tracks, a first pair of the pairs of tracks comprises the first track and the second track, a second pair of the pairs of tracks comprises the first track and a third track determined using a third sensor of the multiple sensors, and a third pair of the pairs of tracks comprises the second track and the third track [at least 00373 teaches ordered pairs of tracks such that first reference track 1 is paired with N-th target tracks and so on].
18: Kim discloses outputting the position information to an object fusion and tracking module that outputs any un-matched objects of the multiple objects to a world model as separate objects, wherein an un-matched object is an object associated with only one track [0016, 0060, 0085-0092 teach sensor information fusion (including track information); at least 0095-96 teach an association map].
19: Kim discloses the first sensor and the second sensor are heterogeneous, the method comprising: synchronously outputting the position information to an object association module for determining the similarity measures for multiple tracks, wherein outputting the position information to the object fusion and tracking module comprises outputting the position information asynchronously [at least 0039 teaches multiple types of sensors and sensor position outputs].
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) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2023/0020920).
5: Kim teaches at fig. 7 a chart that appears to indicate equal values of N and M as corresponding to one another. However, Kim does not explicitly teach or suggest that the values of N and M must be the same or that the disclosure precludes the values being different. Thus, the inclusion of a greater number of M values than N values would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2023/0020920) in view of Velipasalar (WO 2007/147171 A2).
9: Kim explicitly lacks, but Velipasalar teaches to add a time delay to the position information from an infrastructure sensor of the multiple sensors before determining the respective track and before outputting the position information [at least 0037 teaches using calibrated cameras to track objects in world-coordinates and a smart camera system that migrates data relating to a tracking process and that involves temporal delay.].
It would have been obvious It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the apparatus disclosed in Kim with the smart camera object tracking with delay disclosed in Secondary Reference with a reasonable expectation of success because sharing tracking information among a series of cameras inherently involves some degree of temporal delay (which is often desired to be mitigated), however, multi-camera object tracking allows for tracking an object across a large area within an environment.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Samantha K. Nickerson whose telephone number is (571)270-1037. The examiner can normally be reached Generally Monday-Tuesday, 7:00AM-3:00PM CT.
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, Isam Alsomiri can be reached at (571)272-6970. 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.
SAMANTHA K. NICKERSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3645
/SAMANTHA K NICKERSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights