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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/08/2024 has been made record of
and considered by the examiner. All references considered except where lined through. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 12 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 12: “the fist threshold” should read “the first threshold”
Claim 17: “the fist threshold” should read “the first threshold”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mental process (concept performed in a human mind, including as observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, organizing human activity and mathematical concepts and calculations). The claim(s) recite(s) an apparatus, a method, and a CRM for video search/retrieval based on pose and temporal features. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the steps do not add meaningful limitations to be considered specifically applied to a particular technological problem to be solved .The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the steps of the claimed invention can be done mentally and no additional features in the claims would preclude them from being performed as such except for the generic computer elements at high level of generality (i.e., processor, memory).
According to the USPTO guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claims 1, 9 and 10 are directed to an abstract idea as shown below:
STEP 1: Do the claims fall within one of the statutory categories?
Yes, Claim(s) 1, 9 and 10 are directed to an apparatus, methos, and CRM, respectively.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?
Yes, the claims are directed toward a mental process (i.e. abstract idea).
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
The apparatus in claim 1 (and the method in claim 9 and the CRM in claim 10) comprise a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind (or generic computers or components configured to perform the method) and, therefore, an abstract idea.
Regarding claim(s) 1, 9 and 10: the apparatus/method/CRM recites the steps (functions) of: extract a plurality of key frames from a query moving image; search for a moving image similar to the query moving image, based on a pose of a human body included in each of the plurality of key frames and a time interval between the plurality of key frames. (mental process including observation and evaluation, and can be done mentally in the human mind) and (mathematical concepts, mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations).
These limitations, as drafted, is a simple process that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind or by a human. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
As such, a person could watch videos, identify key moments, evaluate body positions and compare sequences of actions, either mentally or using a pen and paper. The mere nominal recitation that the various steps are being executed by a device/in a device (e.g. processing unit) does not take the limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claims recite a mental process.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claim(s) 1, 9 and 10 do not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. Claim(s) 9 and 10 recite(s) the further limitations of:
one memory configured to store one or more instructions (generic computers or components configured to perform the function)
processor configured to execute the one or more instructions (generic computers or components configured to perform the function)
These limitations are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general action or change being taken based on the results of the acquiring step) and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, the claims are claimed generically and are operating in their ordinary capacity such that they do not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
NO, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Claim(s) 1, 9 and 10 does not recite any additional elements that are not well-understood, routine or conventional. The use of a computer to extract, analyze, and compare as claimed in Claim(s) 1, 9 and 10 is a routine, well-understood and conventional process that is performed by computers.
Thus, since Claim(s) 1, 9 and 10 are: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that Claim(s) 1, 9 and 10 are not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding claims 2, 11 and 16: the additional limitations do not integrate the mental process into practical application or add significantly more to the mental process. The limitation(s): wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to include a plurality of relevance frames including a human body having a pose in which a degree of similarity to a pose of a human body included in each of the plurality of key frames is equal to or more than a first threshold value, and include a first search mode that searches for, as a moving image similar to the query moving image, a moving image in which a degree of similarity between a time interval between the plurality of key frames and a time interval between the plurality of relevance frames is equal to or more than a second threshold value (mathematical concepts, mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations)
Regarding claims 3, 12 and 17: the additional limitations do not integrate the mental process into practical application or add significantly more to the mental process. The limitation(s): wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to determine, based on a user input, at least one of the fist threshold value and the second threshold value. (mathematical concepts, mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations)
Regarding claims 4, 13 and 18: the additional limitations do not integrate the mental process into practical application or add significantly more to the mental process. The limitation(s): wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to, for each moving image to be processed, determine a plurality of relevance frames relevant to each of the plurality of key frames, compute an integrated degree of similarity, based on a degree of similarity between a pose of a human body included in each of the plurality of key frames and a pose of a human body included in each of the plurality of relevance frames, and a degree of similarity between a time interval between the key frames and a time interval between the relevance frames, and include a second search mode that searches for, as a moving image similar to the query moving image, the moving image to be processed in which the integrated degree of similarity is equal to or more than a third threshold value. (mathematical concepts, mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations)
Regarding claims 5, 14 and 19: the additional limitations do not integrate the mental process into practical application or add significantly more to the mental process. The limitation(s): wherein a time interval between the key frames includes at least one of a time interval between two temporally-neighboring key frames, and a time interval between temporally-first and temporally-last key frames. (mathematical concepts, mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations)
Regarding claims 6, 15 and 20: the additional limitations do not integrate the mental process into practical application or add significantly more to the mental process. The limitation(s): wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to compute the integrated degree of similarity, based on a weight of a degree of similarity of a pose of a human body specified by a user and a weight of a degree of similarity between a time interval between the key frames and a time interval between the relevance frames. (mathematical concepts, mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations)
Regarding claim 7: the additional limitations do not integrate the mental process into practical application or add significantly more to the mental process. The limitation(s): wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to extract the key frame having a value equal to or more than a lower limit of the number of the key frame to be extracted determined based on a lower limit of a moving image length specified as a search condition by a user. (mathematical concepts, mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations)
Regarding claim 8: the additional limitations do not integrate the mental process into practical application or add significantly more to the mental process. The limitation(s): wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to determine a number of key frames to be extracted in such a way that a length of a moving image including a plurality of the extracted key frames is equal to or more than a lower limit of a moving image length specified by a user. (mathematical concepts, mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations)
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 1, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding et al. (US 20190252002 A1) in view of Watanabe et al. (US 20190147292 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ding et al teaches a search apparatus comprising: at least one memory configured to store one or more instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the one or more instructions to: extract a plurality of key frames from a query moving image; search for a moving image similar to the query moving image, (¶006: The systems and methods then use one or more key frames to search for a query object in the indexed video frames) based on a pose of a human body included in each of the plurality of key frames and a time interval between the plurality of key frames. (¶041: Thus, the image search index 104 includes multiple video frames, the features and relative feature locations cataloged for each video frame, and a timestamp or frame number for each video frame; ¶0065: For example, in one or more embodiments, the bi-direction time decay function acts as a weight that penalizes a similarity score based on the distance between a candidate video frame and a key frame used to determine the similarity score; ¶0082: In particular, the video tracking system moves from the key frame 406 backward in time to identify a previous candidate video frame 402a and then uses the key frame 406 to determine if the previous candidate video frame 402a contains the query object; ¶0092: Also as shown in FIG. 4C, each video frame in the interval is associated with a similarity score)
Ding et al is silent on the remaining limitations of claim 1. However, Watanabe et al discloses searching images based on pose information, including extracting pose features and retrieving images having similar pose. (Abstract: An image retrieving apparatus includes a pose estimating unit which recognizes pose information of a retrieval target including a plurality of feature points from an input image, a features extracting unit which extracts features from the pose information and the input image; ¶0034: a device which attaches an acceleration sensor in a joint of a human body and obtains pose, and the like can be used.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Ding’s keyframe-based video search to incorporate pose-based similarity as taught by Watanabe in or to improve matching accuracy.
Claim 9 recites a method with steps corresponding to the elements of the apparatus recited in Claim 1. Therefore, the recited steps of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding elements in its corresponding apparatus claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Ding et al and Watanabe et al references, presented in rejection of Claim 1, apply to this claim.
Claim 10 recites a computer-readable storage medium storing a program with instructions corresponding to the steps recited in Claim 9. Therefore, the recited programming instructions of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Ding et al and Watanabe et al references, presented in rejection of Claim 9, apply to this claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAVEN S. JONES whose telephone number is (571)272-7759. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00a.m. - 5:00p.m..
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.
/RAVEN SIMONE JONES/ Examiner, Art Unit 2665
/Stephen R Koziol/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2665
Prosecution Insights