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 Interpretation
Claim 14 is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it is a method claim.
Claims 1-13 are not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the recitations of “memories”, “processors” and “instructions” provide sufficient structure to perform all claimed limitations.
Claim 15 is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it is an article of manufacture claim.
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) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Qu et al. (CN11579740A1, Art of record IDS filed on 9/11/2024, referred as Qu hereinafter).
Regarding claim 14, Qu teaches an image processing method performed by an image processing apparatus, the method comprising:
detecting subjects from a frame (see abstract (“the steps: S1, obtaining a plurality of frames of pictures…preprocessing of the pictures…obtaining the preprocessing data…comprise all tracking targets in…each frame of picture”); figure 1 (“Step S1…”); page 3 (“Step S1, acquire multiple frames of pictures…each tracking target”); and page 5 4th para. From the top of the page (“Specifically, in the context of sports events,…tracking targets are athletes and/or referees…tracking target”); and
if no subject having same identification information as identification information of a tracking target subject is detected from a first frame (see figure 1 step 2 (“Step S2, Comparing…matching loss rule”); page 3 (“Step 2, comparing…obtain a lost object, the lost object includes all the tracks whose tracking ID and tracking information satisfy a preset matching loss rule Target”); page 4 (“Preferable, in the step S2, the preset matching loss rule includes: the grouping information corresponding to the same tracking ID in two adjacent frames of the pictures does not match”)); and identification information of subjects detected from the first frame includes new identification information different from identification information of subjects detected from a second frame, which is a frame before a timing at which the tracking target subject is no longer detected (see figure 1 step S3 (“Compare the lost object…tracking target”); abstract (“S3, comparing the lost object corresponding to the previous frame with the lost object correspond to the next frame”); and page 6 (“Step S3, compare the lost object corresponding to the previous frame and the lost object corresponding to the next frame according to the processing in step S2” and “Specifically, in the process of retrieving and correcting lost objects, it is assumed that after comparing…the second lost list of tracking objects lost_list”)), updating the identification information of the tracking target subject to the new identification information (see abstract (“when the tracking target…performing re-assignment…completing error correction of the tracking target”); page 3, 4 lines before the last line (reassigned the tracing ID of the next frame); and page 6 5th paragraph (“Step S3…tracking ID is reassigned to complete an error correction of the tracking target”)).
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(s) 1-10 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qu et al. (CN11579740A1, Art of record IDS filed on 9/11/2024, referred as Qu hereinafter. A copy of an English translation by computer is provided, see PTO-892 attached).
Regarding claim 1 as a representative claim, it is noted that this claim is an apparatus claim and recites similar claim limitations called for in the counterpart method claim 14. Thus, the advanced statements as applied to claim 14 in the preceding paragraph are incorporated hereinafter. Qu does not further teach claim limitation that of “an image processing apparatus comprising one or more memories storing instructions and one or more processors that execute the instructions”.
However, such claim limitation is well known and widely used in the art (Official Notice).
The motivation for doing so is to speed up the process and improve tracking accuracy.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporated such claim limitations in combination with Qu for that reasons.
Regarding claim 2, Qu further teaches wherein it is determined whether or not to update the identification information of the tracking target subject to the new identification information based on whether or not a position of a subject corresponding to the new identification information is located within a range (see page 4 (“Preferable, in the step S3, the preset matching rule includes: the tracking target in the lost object…within a preset search area”; “The preset search area range is an area that is search with a preset search radius around the location information of …the previous frame”).
Regarding claim 3, Qu does not teach claim limitation “wherein a size of the range is changed according to a size of the tracking target subject before the timing”. However, Qu does teach “The preset search area range is an area that is search with a preset search radius around the location information of the tracking target” (see page 6). Thus, it would have been obvious to change the size of the search range in order to cover the tracking target. By doing so, it would be greatly enhanced object tracking accuracy.
Regarding claim 4., Qu does not teach claim limitation “wherein a size of the range is changed according to a moving speed of the tracking target subject before the timing”. However, Qu does teach “The preset search area range is an area that is search with a preset search radius around the location information of the tracking target” (see page 6). Thus, it would have been obvious to change the size of the search range in order to track moving target. By doing so, it would be greatly enhanced object tracking accuracy.
Regarding claim 5, Qu does not teach claim limitation “wherein a shape of the range is changed based on a moving direction of the tracking target subject before the timing”. However, Qu does teach “The preset search area range is an area that is search with a preset search radius around the location information of the tracking target” (see page 6). Thus, it would have been obvious to change the shape of the search range in order to track moving target. By doing so, it would be greatly enhanced object tracking accuracy
Regarding claim 6, Qu further teach wherein a size of the range is changed according to elapsed time from the timing (see page 6 (“The preset search area range is an area that is searched with a preset search radius around the location information of the tracking target in the lost object corresponding to the previous frame”; previous frame refers to elapsed time)
Regarding claim 7, the advanced statements as applied to claim 1 above are incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 8, Qu further teaches wherein the one or more processors execute the instructions to control the capturing so that, among the subjects detected from the captured frame, a subject having the same identification information as the identification information of the tracking target subject is tracked and captured (see page 5 (“Specifically, in the context of sprots events…tracking target”; athletes are tracked and captured so they can be classified into home players and away players).
Regarding claim 9, Qu does not teach claim limitation wherein the subjects are detected from a frame received from an external image capturing unit capable of communicating with the image processing apparatus”.
However, such claim limitation is well known and widely used in the art (Official Notice).
The motivation for doing so is to reduce cost by not employing image capturing unit. It would also allow input image from different sources for processing.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate such claim limitations in combination with Qu for that reasons.
Regarding claim 10, Qu does not teach claim limitation “wherein the one or more processors execute the instructions to generate a control command for controlling the capturing so that a subject having the same identification information as the identification information of the tracking target subject is tracked and captured, and to transmit the control command”.
However, such claim limitation is well known and widely used in the art (Official Notice).
The motivation for doing so is to enhance the quality of the captured image so that the tracking accuracy would be improved..
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate such claim limitations in combination with Qu for that reasons.
Regarding claim 15, it is noted that this claim is a manufacture claim and recites similar claim limitations called for in the counterpart method claim 14. Thus, the advanced statements as applied to claim 14 in the preceding paragraph are incorporated hereinafter. Qu does not further teach claim limitation that of “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program that causes a computer to execute the instructions”.
However, such claim limitation is well known and widely used in the art (Official Notice).
The motivation for doing so is to speed up the process and improve tracking accuracy.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporated such claim limitations in combination with Qu for that reasons.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-13 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 claim 11, the cited prior art does not teach or suggest claim limitations “wherein the one or more processors execute the instruction to, if a feature amount of a subject having new identification information detected after a timing at which the tracking target subject is no longer detected is close to a feature amount of the tracking target subject detected before the tracking target subject is no longer detected, select the subject having new identification information detected after the timing at which the tracking target subject is no longer detected, as a tracking target subject.”
Likewise, claims 12-13 depend on claim 11 and thus are allowable for the same reasons as well.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Shams (U.S. Pat. No. 5,680,514) teaches a target tracking method comprising detecting the target contained in the captured image (col. 3 lines 19-35), recognizing and labeling the target detected as a real target or ghost target (col. 3 lines 40-55).
Zhang et al. (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2006/0268111 A1) teaches a method for target tracking comprising (figure 1) video input 102, computer 104 for content analysis (para. [0064]) to identify target (par. [0065] (background and foreground)) and assign an ID to such target (para. [0068]), and updating the target (para. [0085]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUY M DANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7389. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 7:00AM to 3:00PM.
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, Amandeep Saini can be reached at 571-272-3382. 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.
DMD
4/2026
/DUY M DANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2662