DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements submitted on 05/15/2024 and 09/18/2024 have been considered by the Examiner and made of record in the application file.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The independent claims are directed to the abstract idea of recognizing an interaction indicator using a recognition method that may vary over time, comparing a recognition confidence to a predetermined level, and increasing a weight value when the confidence exceeds that level. These steps fall under mental processes. The additional recitation that the method is used for recognizing an indicator “in a video” does not, by itself, integrate the idea into a practical application because the independent claims do not recite a particular image-processing technique or other technological improvement to video recognition; rather, it just applies the confidence and weight adjustment logic in the field of video recognition. The dependent claims are rejected for similar reasons.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: recognition unit, weight setting unit, storage unit, environmental unit, frame environment setting unit, frame change detection unit and partial enhancement unit in claims 11, 12 and 14-15.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 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) 1-3, 7, 9-13, 17 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Saptharishi (US 2015/0093035 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Saptharishi discloses a recognition method for an interaction indicator, used for recognizing the interaction indicator in a video, wherein the recognition method for the interaction indicator comprises: (Saptharishi discloses a camera analytics system in which image capturing devices capture still images or motion video images and a video analytics module analyzes the captured images. Saptharishi further discloses an object detection module whose input is video data, preferably live video data which detects objects appearing in the field of view, see paragraphs 33-35.)
recognizing the interaction indicator via at least one recognition method, (Saptharishi discloses that the video analytics module includes an object detection module for detecting objects in the camera field of view, and that the object detection module may employ known object detection methods such as motion detection and block detection, see paragraph 35. Saptharishi also discloses an object classification module including classifiers such as a full human body classifier, human torso classifier, and vehicle classifier, see paragraphs 40-41.) may employ known object techniques wherein the recognition method is not exactly the same at different times; and (Saptharishi discloses that, during tracking, the system recalls the previous class and confidence level of an object. If the object was not previously classified with high confidence, multiple object classifiers are executed; if it was previously classified with high confidence, a part of the classifier corresponding to the object’s previously declared class may be executed instead of executing multiple classifiers, see paragraph 53. The recognition method changes at different times based on prior confidence: sometimes multiple classifiers are run, and sometimes only part of a class-specific classifier is run. Saptharishi also discloses runtime classifier evolution, including training a new additional step for the classifier and deploying the classifier after validation, see paragraphs 82 and 85. This further supports that the classifier method can evolve over time and is not exactly the same at different times.)
increasing a weight value of the recognition method, (Under BRI, this is mapped to Saptharishi’s learned size function or calibration parameters used by the recognition method. Saptharishi increases and updates that learned value when the object is recognized with confidence higher than a predetermined level.) when the interaction indicator is recognized and a recognition confidence of the interaction indicator is higher than a predetermined level. (Saptharishi discloses confidence based recognition. The system determines whether an object was previously classified with high confidence, and states that high confidence may be predetermined, e.g., 70% confidence or above, see paragraph 53. Saptharishi further discloses that classification confidence may be represented by a decision step value and that an object may be assigned to the class corresponding to the most confident (e.g., largest) decision step value, see paragraph 52. Saptharishi also discloses automatically updating representative sizes of classified objects during live operation, see paragraph 100. In the calibration method, if classification confidence is low, the size function is unchanged, but if classification confidence is high, the object is classified as a member of the class and the size function is updated using the object’s actual size as an additional data point. The size function is updated by modifying its parameters, such as by recursive least squares, see paragraphs 101-103.)
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Saptharishi discloses the claimed invention wherein the recognition method outputs the interaction indicator and the recognition confidence, under a situation that the video contains continuous frames, if the recognition confidence of the interaction indicator is lower than the predetermined level, the weight value of the recognition method is not increased. (paragraphs 36-37, 53 and 101)
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Saptharishi discloses the claimed invention wherein when the recognition confidence of the interaction indicator outputted by the recognition method is higher than the predetermined level, a successfully recognized sample is recorded, and the successfully recognized sample is used to retest the recognition method or the interaction indicator. (paragraphs 41 and 102-103)
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Saptharishi discloses the claimed invention wherein the interaction indicator is at least one facial feature, at least one gesture, at least one posture, or at least one object. (paragraphs 4 and 40)
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Saptharishi discloses the claimed invention wherein during an idle time of operation, a successfully recognized sample checking method is used to check a correctness of the interaction indicator in a successfully recognized sample, and if different interaction indicators are recognized, the weight value of the recognition method is maintained. (paragraphs 90-92 and 101-104)
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Saptharishi discloses the claimed invention wherein the recognition method and a frame environment parameter are selected according to a weight calculation method. (paragraphs 64 and 101-105)
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 4, 6, 14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saptharishi (US 2015/0093035 A1) in view of Nishimura (US 2021/0092280 A1).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Saptharishi discloses the claimed invention except for wherein detecting whether the video has changed in light or color; setting at least one frame environment parameter, if the video has changed in light or color, wherein when at least one successfully recognized sample has been stored, the frame environment parameter is set according to the at least one successfully recognized sample.
In related art, Nishimura discloses detecting whether the video has changed in light or color; setting at least one frame environment parameter, if the video has changed in light or color, wherein when at least one successfully recognized sample has been stored, the frame environment parameter is set according to the at least one successfully recognized sample. (paragraphs 48-53, 56-60, 69-70 and 78-80)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Nishimura into the teachings of Saptharishi to effectively maximize a confidence of the neural network model for the detection of an object in the reacquired imaging information.
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Saptharishi discloses the claimed invention except for wherein if the recognition confidence of the interaction indicator is higher than the predetermined level, at least one frame environment parameter and a frame change detection method is used as a successfully recognized sample.
In related art, Nishimura discloses if the recognition confidence of the interaction indicator is higher than the predetermined level, at least one frame environment parameter and a frame change detection method is used as a successfully recognized sample. (paragraphs 13-14, 56-58 and 82)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Nishimura into the teachings of Saptharishi to effectively maximize a confidence of the neural network model for the detection of an object in the reacquired imaging information.
Claims 5 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saptharishi (US 2015/0093035 A1) in view of Choi (US 2009/0066782 A1).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Saptharishi discloses the claimed invention except for wherein detecting an interaction indicator appearance area in the video via a frame change detection method; and performing a partial enhancement on the interaction indicator appearance area.
In related art, Choi discloses detecting an interaction indicator appearance area in the video via a frame change detection method; (paragraphs 8-10 and 36) and performing a partial enhancement on the interaction indicator appearance area. (paragraphs 41-42)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Choi into the teachings of Saptharishi to effectively reduce the amount of bandwidth and power consumption required for data readout.
Claims 8 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saptharishi (US 2015/0093035 A1) in view of Arar (US 2021/0182625 A1).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Saptharishi discloses the claimed invention except for wherein when the interaction indicator and a first detailed feature and a second detailed feature thereof are recognized via the recognition method, the recognition confidence of the first detailed feature is lower than the predetermined level, and the recognition confidence of the second detailed feature higher than the predetermined level, the second detailed feature is recorded as a successfully recognized sample; the second detailed feature as the successfully recognized sample is used to recombine into a third detailed feature.
In related art, Arar discloses wherein when the interaction indicator and a first detailed feature and a second detailed feature thereof are recognized via the recognition method, the recognition confidence of the first detailed feature is lower than the predetermined level, and the recognition confidence of the second detailed feature higher than the predetermined level, the second detailed feature is recorded as a successfully recognized sample; the second detailed feature as the successfully recognized sample is used to recombine into a third detailed feature. (paragraphs 19-31)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Arar into the teachings of Saptharishi for more accurate and robust determination of subject characteristics from an image of the subject.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BOBBAK SAFAIPOUR whose telephone number is (571)270-1092. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00am - 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 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.
/BOBBAK SAFAIPOUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2665
Prosecution Insights