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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 7, 8, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Heywood et al. (USPN 11,706,391)
Regarding claim 1, Heywood discloses:
a first terminal and a second terminal that are communicably connected to each other, wherein each of the first terminal and the second terminal comprises: at least one memory storing instructions; and at least one processor (see 5:18-27, 6:12-22, 8:50-59, and fig 1, a first terminal 102 and a second terminal 110, each equipped with a processor and a memory that perform any portion of a violation classification process),
the at least one processor of the first terminal is configured to execute the instructions to acquire image data related to an image of a predetermined space from a camera that photographs the predetermined space (see 11:25-31, the violation classification process is performed on a video, captured by terminal 102, of a particular scene),
the at least one processor of at least one of the first terminal or the second terminal is configured to execute the instructions to analyze whether skeletal data relating to a structure of a body of a person included in the image are similar to predetermined reference skeletal data (see 14:45-62 and fig 6, the violation classification process analyzes whether skeletal postures of a first person and a second person in the video match predetermined skeletal postures in training data; and see 5:18-27, 6:12-22, 8:50-59, each of the processors and memories performs any portion of the violation classification process), and
the at least one processor of the second terminal is configured to execute the instructions to: detect a predetermined event based on a result of the analysis; and output result information that is a result of the detection (see 15:29-36, the violation classification process determines a police violation occurred based on the analysis and generates a corresponding alert; and see 5:18-27, 6:12-22, 8:50-59, each of the processors and memories performs any portion of the violation classification process).
Regarding claim 2, Heywood further discloses: wherein the at least one processor of the second terminal is configured to execute the instructions to perform detection of the predetermined event based on the skeletal data of at least two persons simultaneously included in the image (see rejection of claim 1, police violation is determined based on skeletal postures of the first person and the second person simultaneously present in the video).
Regarding claim 3, Heywood further disclose: wherein the at least one processor of at least one of the first terminal or the second terminal is further configured to execute the instructions to store predetermined reference data relating to posture of a person (see rejection of claim 1, the training data with predetermined skeletal postures are inherently gathered and stored for training).
Regarding claim 4, Heywood further discloses:
wherein the at least one processor of the second terminal is configured to execute the instructions to analyze whether skeletal data relating to a structure of a body of a person included in the image are similar to predetermined reference skeletal data (see rejection of claim 1, the violation classification process analyzes whether the skeletal postures of the first person and second person in the video match the predetermined skeletal postures in training data; and see rejection of claim 1, each of the processors and memories performs any portion of the violation classification process), and
the at least one processor of the first terminal is configured to execute the instructions to supply preprocessing data acquired by performing predetermined preprocessing on the image data to the second terminal (see rejection of claim 1, each of the processors and memories performs any portion of the violation classification process; and see 5:21-27, wherein the processor and memory of the first terminal may preprocess the video prior to the violation classification process).
Regarding claim 5, Heywood further discloses: wherein, as the preprocessing, the at least one processor of the first terminal is configured to execute the instructions to generate extracted image data acquired by extracting a person image including a person among the images, and supply the extracted image data to the second terminal (see rejection of claim 1, the violation classification process extracts the skeletal postures of the first person and second person in the video; and see rejection of claim 1, each of the processors and memories performs any portion of the violation classification process).
Regarding claim 7, Heywood further discloses:
wherein the at least one processor of the first terminal is configured to execute the instructions to: generate extracted image data acquired by extracting a first person image from the image data; and analyze whether the first person image is similar to first reference skeletal data, and generate first analysis result information (see rejection of claim 1, the violation classification process extracts skeletal postures of the first person and second person in the video, analyzes whether the extracted skeletal postures match predetermined skeletal postures in training data, and generates the alert; and see rejection of claim 1, each of the processors and memories performs any portion of the violation classification process),
the at least one processor of the second terminal is configured to execute the instructions to: generate extracted image data acquired by extracting a second person image from the image data; analyze whether the second person image is similar to second reference skeletal data; and perform detection of the event based on the first analysis result information and the second analysis result information (see rejection of claim 1, the violation classification process extracts skeletal postures of the first person and second person in the video, analyzes whether the extracted skeletal postures match predetermined skeletal postures in training data, and generates the alert; and see rejection of claim 1, each of the processors and memories performs any portion of the violation classification process).
Regarding claim 8, Heywood further discloses:
wherein the at least one processor of the first terminal is configured to execute the instructions to: generate extracted image data acquired by extracting a person image from the image data; and analyze whether the person image is similar to the reference skeletal data, and generate first analysis result information (see rejection of claim 1, the violation classification process extracts skeletal postures of the first person and second person in the video, analyzes whether the extracted skeletal postures match predetermined skeletal postures in training data, and generates the alert; and see rejection of claim 1, each of the processors and memories performs any portion of the violation classification process), and
the at least one processor of the second terminal is configured to execute the instructions to perform detection of the event based on a plurality of pieces of first analysis result information acquired from a plurality of the first terminals (see 5:18-27, 6:12-22, 8:50-59, a plurality of first terminals 102, 108, 110, 112, and 122, each equipped with a processor and a memory that perform any portion of a violation classification process; and see 5:18-27, wherein the violation classification process determines the police violation occurred based on inputs from more than one of the first terminals; and see rejection of claim 1, each of the processors and memories performs any portion of the violation classification process).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Heywood discloses everything claimed as applied above (see rejection of claim 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 9-11 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Lan et al. (USPN 11,003,949), Manzi et al. (“Two-person activity recognition using skeleton data”), and Li et al. (“Multiview skeletal interaction recognition using active joint interaction graph”) each discloses analyzing skeletal postures of a plurality of people in one scene to classify action/interaction.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SJ PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-3569. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, ANDREW MOYER can be reached at 571-272-9523. 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.
/SJ Park/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2675