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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 9 and 10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,182,197 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because every feature or element of the claims of the instant application is recited in the claim of the patent. Since the word “comprising” in claims of the instant application does not preclude further recitations of the claim of the patent, the claims of the instant application would be obvious in view of the claim of the patent
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-13, 15-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20190147292 A1 to Watanabe et al (hereinafter ‘Watanabe’).
Regarding claim 1, Watanabe discloses an image processing apparatus (Para [0029], wherein FIG. 1 is a block diagram of an exemplary configuration of an image retrieving system 100 according to the present embodiment), comprising: at least one memory configured to store one or more instructions; and at least one processor (Para [0051], wherein FIG. 2, the image retrieving apparatus 104 includes a processor 201 and a storage apparatus 202 which are mutually connected) configured to execute the one or more instructions to: execute processing of detecting a plurality of key points associated with each of a plurality of parts of a human body included in an image (Para [0046], wherein the pose inputting unit 109 receives the pose information which is input by a user via the input apparatus 102. As described above, the pose information includes a set of a plurality of feature points, inherently as plurality of Key points, and the feature point has the coordinates and the reliability, inherently as computed feature value of each point); receive a user input for specifying a method of integrating the feature values of the key points detected from each of a plurality of human bodies for each of the parts (Para [0030], wherein the term “pose” here indicates a set of feature points which commonly exists in a target object. For example, in a case of a person, the “pose” can be defined by a set of feature points such as head, neck, right shoulder, right elbow, right wrist, left shoulder, left elbow, left wrist, right waist, right knee, right ankle, left waist, left knee, and left ankle, and wherein in para [0080], and FIG. 9, the pose inputting unit 109 receives the pose information input by the user (S901). The pose information is a set of feature points, and the feature point is indicated by coordinate values, inherently as specifying method of integration of combination of points i.e. the pose); compute an integrated feature value of each of the parts by performing integration for each of the parts by the method specified by the user input (Para [0047], or Fig. 9, step 903, wherein the query generating unit 110 converts the pose information, as e.g. the integrated body part, obtained by the pose inputting unit 109 into a retrieval query. The retrieval query is features and, for example, is expressed by a fixed-length numerical vector. The conversion from the pose information into the retrieval query is performed by means equivalent to the features extracting unit 107), and perform an image search or image classification, based on the integrated feature value (Para [0083], wherein the image retrieving unit 111, as search unit, retrieves similar images from the image database 108 according to the pose features obtained in step S902, as the integrated feature values, and the retrieval condition obtained in step S903 (S904).).
Regarding claim 2, Watanabe discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to receive the user input for specifying adoption of the feature value computed from a human body of the plurality of human bodies for each of the parts (Para [0090, the user determines the coordinates of the feature points by dragging and dropping feature points of basic pose displayed in the pose, as specifying adoption of certain pose, input region 1001 (corresponding to step S901). the feature points in FIG. 10 are, for example, 0: head, 1: neck, 2: right shoulder, 3: right elbow, 4: right wrist, 5: left shoulder, 6: left elbow, 7: left wrist, 8: right waist, 9: right knee, 10: right ankle, 11: left waist, 12: left knee, 13: left ankle, as each of the body parts), and decide, as the integrated feature value of each of the parts, the feature value computed from a human body specified by the user input (Para [0103], wherein the user can check a person to be confirmed, as deciding, in a pose specified in the filter condition (for example, squatting person) by looking at the actual image and can check other people by grasping a state of an entire scene based on the visualized pose information).
Regarding claim 3, Watanabe discloses wherein the input unit displays the at least one processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to display a human body model in which a plurality of objects are arranged at the parts of a human body for each of the plurality of human bodies, and receive the user input for selecting the object associated with the part whose feature value being computed is to be adopted or the object associated with the part not for adoption (Para [0090, the user determines the coordinates of the feature points by dragging and dropping feature points of basic pose displayed in the pose, as specifying adoption of certain pose, input region 1001 (corresponding to step S901)).
Regarding claim 4, Watanabe discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to displays display a human body model for each of the plurality of human bodies, and receives receive the user input for selecting at least one part of a body in the human body model (Para [0094], wherein FIG. 11 is an example of an operation screen to specify the attribute, as the body part, and the image features of the image as the retrieval conditions according to the present embodiment. In FIG. 11, an attribute input region 1101 and an image selection button 1102 are added to the screen in FIG. 10.), and decide the part being present in the body part selected by the user input, as the part whose feature value being computed is to be adopted or the part whose feature value being computed is not to be adopted (Para [0095], wherein In FIG. 11, by clicking a check box, inherently as deciding and adopting, of an attribute displayed in the attribute input region 1101, the user adds the attribute of the corresponding person to the retrieval condition. Furthermore, by clicking the image selection button and selecting an arbitrary image stored in the image storing apparatus 101, image features extracted from the selected image can be added to the retrieval conditions.).
Regarding claim 6, Watanabe discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to display information for discriminating between the part that is not detected from any of the plurality of human bodies, or is not detected from a human body specified by the user input and does not have the integrated feature value computed thereat, and the part that is detected from at least one of the plurality of human bodies, or is detected from a human body specified by the user input and has the integrated feature value computed thereat (Para [0072], wherein in FIG. 6, for example, in a case of a person image 602 who is sitting with the hand on the knee, as in pose information 601, inherently as display information that some body parts are not detected, the feature points obtained by the pose estimating processing lack. Therefore, the image retrieving apparatus 104 obtains similar images (603, 604, and 605), inherently as display information that most body parts are detected, from the image database 108 and complements position information on lacking feature points from the pose information of the similar images (pose information 606).).
Regarding claim 7, Watanabe discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to display a human body model in which a plurality of objects are arranged in the parts of a human body (Para [0069], wherein the features extracting unit 107 extracts the pose features from the complemented pose information obtained in step S505 (S506). The pose features are numerical vector reflecting the pose information, and can be calculated based on data in which coordinates of the feature points are arranged, the image features extracted from the image in which the feature points are visualized, as being displayed, and numerical data of a distance and an angle between the feature points, as human body model), and also display the object associated with the part in which the integrated feature value is computed and the object associated with the part in which the integrated feature value is not computed, in a discriminable manner (Para [0068], and Fig. 6, wherein the features extracting unit 107 complements the feature points in a case where the pose information of the person obtained in step S502 lacks or in a case where the reliability of the feature points is extremely low (S505). In the pose estimating processing in step S502, in a case where an image is unclear and, in a case, where the person is hidden by a shielding object, the feature point may be lacked, as some of the feature values not computed as image 601).
Regarding claim 8, Watanabe discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to display information for discriminating between the part in which the key point is detected and the part in which the key point is not detected, in association with each of the plurality of human bodies (Para [0069] and [0072], wherein the image features extracted from the image in which the feature points are visualized, as displayed, and numerical data of a distance and an angle between the feature points, and wherein in FIG. 6, for example, in a case of a person image 602 who is sitting with the hand on the knee, as in pose information 601, the feature points obtained by the pose estimating processing lack. Therefore, the image retrieving apparatus 104 obtains similar images (603, 604, and 605) from the image database 108 and complements position information on lacking feature points, as not detected, from the pose information of the similar images (pose information 606)).
Regarding method claims 9, 11-13 and 15, please refer to the corresponding apparatus claims 1-4 and 6, respectively, for further teachings.
Regarding claim 10, Watanabe discloses a non-transitory storage medium storing a program (Para [0052], wherein processing executed by each functional unit is executed by the processor 201 based on the processing program 203) causing a computer to function as: please refer to the corresponding apparatus claim 1 above for further teachings.
Regarding claims 16-18 and 20, please refer to the corresponding apparatus claims 2-4 and 6 above for further teachings.
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.
Claims 5, 14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe in view of US 2014/0355825 A1 to Kim et al (hereinafter ‘Kim’)
Regarding claims 5, 14 and 19, Watanabe discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions receive the user input for specifying a weight of the feature value computed from each of the plurality of human bodies for each of the parts (Para [0079], wherein the retrieval result is a list of a plurality of pieces of personal data (803, 804, and 805) and is sorted, for example, in order of the degree of similarity, inherently as predetermined weighting selected by the user/administer, and output. In addition, image data corresponding to each personal data may be output.). Watanabe does not specifically disclose compute a weighted average value according to the weight of the feature value computed from each of the plurality of human bodies, as the integrated feature value of each of the parts. Kim discloses compute a weighted average value according to the weight of the feature value computed from each of the plurality of human bodies, as the integrated feature value of each of the parts (Para [0052], wherein the similarity between the user area and the result of the tracking may be referred to as "silhouette similarity". The confidence of the result of the tracking may be calculated using a weighted sum of the average distance of the points corresponding and the silhouette similarity). Watanabe and Kim are combinable because they both disclose extract object features for modeling the object. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to combine the weighted average value according to the weight of the feature value computed from each of the plurality of human bodies, as the integrated feature value of each of the parts, of Kim’s apparatus/method/program with Watanabe’s so that the confidence of the result satisfies the predetermined conditions (Para [0053]).
Contact information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHERVIN K NAKHJAVAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5731. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-05:00 PST.
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, Sue Lefkowitz can be reached at (571)272-3638. 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.
/SHERVIN K NAKHJAVAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2672
Prosecution Insights