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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding rejection on claim 1, applicant argued that Ding and Boghossian fail to teach “configuring an entity relationship between any two entity images, which are suspected to have a same entity, in an entity image sequence to obtain an entity triple” and “topologically connecting any two entity triples, which share a same entity relationship, through an entity relationship between two entity images in each of the two entity triples to construct at least one entity relationship graph.” Applicant argued that the “triple in knowledge graph” and “image information (related to the first entity and the second entity)” in Ding are different to the “entity triple” and “same entity (in the entity image sequence)” recited in claim 1; and “tracklet connection” in Boghossian is different from “entity triple” recited in claim 1. Last, applicant argued there is no motivation to combine Ding and Boghossian because the two differ fundamentally in technical field.
However, examiner respectfully disagrees. First off, Ding does teach entity images in paragraph 0008, wherein first and second image information vectors of first and second entities are considered as “entity images” because they are acquired as related to first and second entities. Nothing in argued claim limits “entity” consisting only “entity image,” or excludes a semantic relation. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., same entity depicted within two images) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The limitation “wherein entity images in each of the at least one relationship sub-graph correspond to a same entity” is not necessarily interpret as having the same entity shown in entity images.
Second off, despite applicant’s argument, Boghossian teach embodiments and features in generating relationship graph, wherein nodes corresponding images of the same object/individual are identified and presented/indicated in relationship graph. This is much like what Ding does. When argued claim does not limit what application field “entity relationship graph” is in, applicant’s argument with respect to Boghossian’s field of application is moot. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, both Ding and Boghossian teach embodiments and features in generating relationship graphs though their relationship graphs are in different fields of application. To one of ordinary skill in the art, it would have been obvious before effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize and incorporate features from Boghossian into the method of Ding for furthering detail presented in relationship graph.
Thus, rejection is proper and maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-3, 9-12, 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding et al. (US2018/0341863) in view of Boghossian et al. (US2013/0208124).
To claim 1, Li teach an entity image clustering processing method, comprising:
configuring an entity relationship between any two entity images (Fig. 1, paragraphs 0029-0032), which are suspected to have a same entity, in an entity image sequence to obtain an entity triple (paragraphs 0040-0043, 0092-0095, 0104, image information related to the same entity; paragraphs 0003, 0101-0102, 0109, triple in knowledge graph);
topologically connecting any two entity triples, which share a same entity relationship, through an entity relationship between two entity images in each of the two entity triples to construct at least one entity relationship graph (paragraphs 0011, 0026, 0033, 0061, 0097, 0107, 0114, relations are topologically connected, paragraphs 0040-0043, 0093-0095, 0103-0104, obtain information of the same entity).
But, Ding do not expressly disclose topologically connecting any two entity triples, which share a same entity relationship, through an entity relationship between two entity images in each of the two entity triples to construct at least one entity relationship graph; segmenting at least one relationship sub-graph from the at least one entity relationship graph according to an affinity between entity images in the at least one entity relationship graph; wherein entity images in each of the at least one relationship sub-graph correspond to a same entity.
Boghossian teach analyzing a sequence of video frames of a camera view field to track an object in said view field and determine start and end points of said track in said view field (abstract), wherein spatial relationship and temporal relationship are determined to track tagged object through said sequence of video frames (paragraphs 0012-0026, 104, 0106, 0110, images/frames from tagged cameras provide tracking), topologically connecting any two entity triples, which share a same entity relationship, through an entity relationship between two entity images in each of the two entity triples to construct at least one entity relationship graph (Figs. 13, 16-18, paragraphs 0023, 0083, 0135); segmenting at least one relationship sub-graph from the at least one entity relationship graph according to an affinity between entity images in the at least one entity relationship graph; wherein entity images in each of the at least one relationship sub-graph correspond to a same entity (Figs. 16-18, paragraphs 0009, 0014, 0122, 0065, tracking termination would segment/separate relationship between nodes).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Boghossian into the method of Ding, in order to apply relation graph in tracking application.
To claim 9, Ding and Boghossian teach an electronic device, comprising:
at least one processor; and a storage apparatus, configured to store at least one program; wherein the at least one program, when executed by the at least one processor (as explained in response to claim 1 above).
To claim 10, Ding and Boghossian teach a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program, wherein the computer program, when executed by a processor (as explained in response to claim 1 above).
To claims 2, 11 and 17, Ding and Boghossian teach claims 1, 9 and 10
Ding and Boghossian teach wherein the configuring an entity relationship between any two entity images, which are suspected to have a same entity, in an entity image sequence to obtain an entity triple comprises:
determining an inter-image similarity between any two entity images in the entity image sequence (Boghossian, abstract, analyze a sequence of video frames to track an object/entity, paragraphs 0023, 0083, 0135, compare to check if the same object); and
taking two entity images whose inter-image similarity meets a first similarity condition as the two entity images suspected to have the same entity, and configuring one entity relationship between the two entity images suspected to have the same entity to obtain an entity triple of the two entity images (Boghossian, paragraphs 0103-0107, 0132-0135, link tracklets belonging to an individual object, tagged tracklet);
wherein the first similarity condition is used for screening out any two entity images that do not contain a same entity (Boghossian, paragraphs 0008-0009, a track exists for an object until it disappears from the scene completely or satisfies a condition set for the termination of tracks).
.
To claims 3, 12 and 18, Ding and Boghossian teach claims 2, 11 and 17.
Ding and Boghossian teach wherein the determining an inter-image similarity between any two entity images in the entity image sequence comprises:
extracting a feature vector of each entity image of a plurality of entity images in the entity image sequence (Ding, abstract, image information vector on entity; Boghossian, abstract, analyze a sequence of video frames to track an object/entity); and
performing a pairwise cross-comparison on feature vectors of the plurality of entity images, and calculating an image feature similarity between feature vectors of any two entity images of the plurality of entity images to obtain a feature similarity matrix; wherein each element in the feature similarity matrix is a similarity between two entity images (Boghossian, paragraphs 0017, 0023, 0103, making comparison on similarity of appearance through video frames to track tagged object, feature similarity matrix is a well-known technique in the art, which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate for implementation, hence Official Notice is taken).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHIYU LU whose telephone number is (571)272-2837. The examiner can normally be reached Weekdays: 8:30AM - 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 R 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.
ZHIYU . LU
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2669
/ZHIYU LU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2665 October 1, 2026
