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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Paragraph 70, last sentence, “Fig. 5” should read “Fig. 7”. Appropriate correction is required.
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)(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(s) 1-10, 12-19, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wei (CN 110889371), cited in the IDS dated 5/28/24.
Regarding claims 1 and 25, Wei discloses a method, implemented on a computing device having at least one processor and at least one storage device, and a system, comprising:
at least one storage device including a set of instructions (see page 7, paras 19-20, memory 501); and
at least one processor in communication with the at least one storage device, wherein when executing the set of instructions (see page 7, paras 19-20, processor 502), the at least one processor is directed to cause the system to perform operations including:
obtaining a first image including a first subject and information related to the first subject (see page 4, para 19, a first image is acquired and a determination of muck, or soil residue, is performed, the muck being a first subject);
determining, based on the first image and the information related to the first subject, a second image including the first subject, wherein the second image is captured no later than the first image (see page 5, paras 9-11, a second image is acquired that occurs before the first image to determine if a truck or other vehicle is present);
determining, based on the second image, a third image including a second subject, wherein the first subject is associated with the second subject (see page 5, paras 9-11, a third image, one showing a second subject, a truck or other vehicle, is determined to be the vehicle that dropped the muck);
determining a background image which does not include the first subject (see page 5, paras 1-4, a background image without a first subject is determined); and
determining a target event based on the background image, the second image, and the third image (see page 5, para 9, a plurality of images, including a background image, are used to determine if a vehicle dropped muck).
Regarding claim 13, Wei discloses a system, comprising:
at least one storage device including a set of instructions (see page 7, paras 19-20, memory 501); and
at least one processor in communication with the at least one storage device, wherein when executing the set of instructions (see page 7, paras 19-20, processor 502), the at least one processor is directed to cause the system to perform operations including:
obtaining a first image including a first subject and information related to the first subject (see page 4, para 19, a first image is acquired and a determination of muck, or soil residue, is performed, the muck being a first subject);
determining, based on the first image and the information related to the first subject, a second image including the first subject, wherein the second image is captured no later than the first image (see page 5, paras 9-11, a second image is acquired that occurs before the first image to determine if a truck or other vehicle is present);
determining, based on the second image, a third image, wherein the third image is captured later than the second image (see page 5, paras 9-11, a third image is acquired that occurs before the second image);
determining whether the third image includes the first subject based on the information related to the first subject (see page 5, paras 9-11, a third image is acquired that occurs before the second image to determine if muck is present); and
in response to determining that the third image includes the first subject, determining that the first subject is a target subject (see page 5, para 9, a plurality of images, including a background image, are used to determine if a vehicle dropped muck).
Regarding claims 2 and 15, Wei further discloses wherein the information related to the first subject includes at least a type of the first subject and a position of the first subject in the first image (see page 4, para 17, muck vehicle throwing detection system detects if muck exists on the ground).
Regarding claim 3, Wei further discloses wherein the at least one processor is further directed to cause the system to perform operations including: determining, based on the second image, a fourth image, wherein the fourth image is captured later than the second image; determining whether the fourth image includes the first subject based on the information related to the first subject; in response to determining that the fourth image includes the first subject, determining the target event based on the background image, the second image, the third image, and the fourth image (see page 5, paras 9-13, a plurality of images, including a background image, are used to determine if a vehicle dropped muck).
Regarding claim 4, Wei further discloses wherein the determining whether the fourth image includes the first subject based on the information related to the first subject including: obtaining a target region of the fourth image corresponding to the position of the first subject; and determining whether the fourth image includes the first subject in the target region (see page 5, paras 9-13, a plurality of images, including a background image, are used to determine if a vehicle dropped muck).
Regarding claim 5, Wei further discloses wherein the at least one processor is further directed to cause the system to perform operations including: in response to determining that the fourth image does not include the first subject, determining that the target event does not occur (see page 5, para 13, if no muck is detected then no event has occurred).
Regarding claim 6, Wei further discloses wherein the determining, based on the first image and the information related to the first subject, a second image including the first subject includes:
obtaining a plurality of first historical images which are captured earlier than the first image (see page 4, para 20 and page 5, para 10, a plurality of images from video data are acquired);
determining whether one or more first candidate images of the plurality of first historical images include the first subject; and in response to determining that one or more first candidate images includes the first subject, determining a first candidate image as the second image from the one or more first candidate images (see page 5, paras 9-13, the plurality of images are used to determine if a vehicle dropped muck).
Regarding claim 7, Wei further discloses wherein the determining, based on the first image and the information related to the first subject, a second image including the first subject includes: in response to determining that no first candidate image includes the first subject, designating the first image as the second image (see page 5, para 9, images are processed until muck is detected, thus a first image would become a second image and so on).
Regarding claim 8, Wei further discloses wherein the determining, based on the second image, a third image including a second subject includes:
obtaining a plurality of second historical images which are captured earlier than the second image (see page 4, para 20 and page 5, para 10, a plurality of images from video data are acquired);
determining, based on the plurality of second historical images, one or more second candidate images each of which includes the second subject; and determining a second candidate image captured at the latest as the third image from the one or more second candidate images (see page 5, paras 9-13, the plurality of images are used to determine if a vehicle dropped muck).
Regarding claim 9, Wei further discloses wherein the determining a background image includes:
obtaining a plurality of third historical images which are captured earlier than the third image (see page 4, para 20 and page 5, para 10, a plurality of images from video data are acquired);
determining, based on the plurality of third historical images and the information related to the first subject, one or more third candidate images each of which does not include the first subject; and determining a third candidate image captured at the latest as the background image from the one or more third candidate images (see page 5, paras 9-13, the plurality of images are used to determine if a vehicle dropped muck).
Regarding claim 10, Wei further discloses wherein the obtaining a first image including a first subject and information related to the first subject includes: determining the first image including the first subject and the information related to the first subject using a subject detection model (see page 6, para 14 and page 7, paras 21-24, first judging module 401 is a detection model).
Regarding claim 12, Wei further discloses wherein the at least one processor is further directed to cause the system to perform operations including:
obtaining, based on the third image, identity information of the second subject (see page 5, para 13, a truck or other muck throwing vehicle is detected); and
determining the target event based on the background image, the second image, the third image, and the identity information of the second subject (see page 5, paras 9-13, a plurality of images, including a background image, are used to determine if a vehicle dropped muck).
Regarding claim 14, Wei further discloses wherein the at least one processor is further directed to cause the system to perform operations including:
determining a background image which does not include the first subject (see page 5, paras 1-4, a background image without any muck is determined);
determining, based on the second image, a fourth image including a second subject, wherein the first subject is associated with the second subject; and determining a target event based on the background image, the second image, the third image, and the fourth image (see page 5, paras 9-13, a plurality of images, including a background image, are used to determine if a vehicle dropped muck).
Regarding claim 16, Wei further discloses wherein the determining whether the third image includes the first subject based on the information related to the first subject including: obtaining a target region of the third image corresponding to the position of the first subject; and determining whether the third image includes the first subject in the target region (see page 5, paras 9-13, a plurality of images, including a background image, are used to determine if a vehicle dropped muck).
Regarding claim 17, Wei further discloses wherein the at least one processor is further directed to cause the system to perform operations including: in response to determining that the third image does not include the first subject, determining that the target event does not occur (see page 5, para 13, if no muck is detected then no event has occurred).
Regarding claim 18, Wei further discloses wherein the determining, based on the first image and the information related to the first subject, a second image including the first subject includes:
obtaining a plurality of first historical images which are captured earlier than the first image (see page 4, para 20 and page 5, para 10, a plurality of images from video data are acquired);
determining whether one or more first candidate images of the plurality of first historical images include the first subject; and in response to determining that one or more first candidate images includes the first subject, determining a first candidate image as the second image from the one or more first candidate images (see page 5, paras 9-13, the plurality of images are used to determine if a vehicle dropped muck).
Regarding claim 19, Wei further discloses wherein the determining, based on the first image and the information related to the first subject, a second image including the first subject includes: in response to determining that no first candidate image includes the first subject, designating the first image as the second image (see page 5, para 9, images are processed until muck is detected, thus a first image would become a second image and so on).
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 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wei as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nelson et al. (US 10,949,814).
Wei discloses wherein the obtaining a first image including a first subject and information related to the first subject includes: obtaining an initial image including the first subject (see page 4, para 19, a first image is acquired and a determination of muck, or soil residue, is performed, the muck being a first subject).
Wei does not disclose expressly determining whether a clarity of the initial image exceeds a threshold; in response to determining that the clarity of the initial image exceeds the threshold, designating the initial image as the first image.
Nelson discloses determining whether a clarity of the initial image exceeds a threshold; in response to determining that the clarity of the initial image exceeds the threshold, designating the initial image as the first image (see col 17 lines 39-67, image quality/clarity can be used to determine if an image is used or not, if the image quality exceeds a threshold, then it can be utilized).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the image quality threshold, as described by Nelson, with the system of Wei.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to ensure accurate detection of muck by only utilizing a high enough resolution image.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Nelson with Wei to obtain the invention as specified in claim 11.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK R MILIA whose telephone number is (571)272-7408. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-5pm.
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 Sarpong can be reached at 571-270-3438. The fax 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.
/MARK R MILIA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681
Prosecution Insights