DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Oath/Declaration
2. The receipt of Oath/Declaration is acknowledged.
Preliminary Amendment
3. The Preliminary Amendment submitted on 07/16/2024 containing amendments to the specification are acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/16/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
5. The drawing(s) filed on 07/16/2024 are accepted by the Examiner.
Status of Claims
6. Claims 1-14 are pending in this application.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
7. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
8. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a correction unit” in claims 1, 2, and 4-5;
“an update unit” in claims 1 and 3;
“a result integration unit” in claims 6 and 7;
“2D centroid calculation unit” in claims 8 and 9; and
“a feature extraction unit” in claims 10-11.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
9. 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.
10. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
11. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because Claim 14 cover both statutory and non-statutory embodiments (under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim when read in light of the specification and in view of one skilled in the art) and embraces subject matter that is not eligible for patent protection and therefore is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
“[a] transitory, propagating signal … is not a “process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” Those four categories define the explicit scope and reach of subject matter patentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101; thus, such a signal cannot be patentable subject matter.” (In re Petrus A.C.M. Nuijten; Fed Cir, 2006-1371, 9/20/2007).
Specifically, Applicant’s specification at [0154] describes and as a result is drawn to a recording medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments. Thus, the claims are not eligible subject matter. It is recommended to amend and narrow the claims to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by adding the limitation "non-transitory" to the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
15. 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.
16. Claims 1-3, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OKADA et al., (Tracking a Person with 3-D Motion by Integrating Optical Flow and Depth, IEICE Transactions, August 25, 1999, pp. 1252-1261, Vol. J82-D-II, No. 8) in view of Akiyama et al. (JP 2019-121019 A).
Regarding Claim 1:
Okada discloses an information processing device comprising:
Okada discloses an information processing device that tracks an object (a person) based on 2D tracking using an optical flow and 3D tracking using a depth (disparity) (Okada, p. 2, §2 (“Optical Flow and Disparity”); p. 3, fig. 4), teaching that optical flow and disparity “are computed by obtaining the correspondences of points between two successive frames and between a pair of stereo images,” and that the target state is estimated by integrating optical flow and depth because “although none of them alone can estimate the 3-D target state reliably, they compensate for each other” (Okada, p. 1, §1). Okada further discloses updating the tracking result via an Extended Kalman filter that estimates the target state each frame and eliminates state candidates inconsistent with the current observation (Okada, p. 3, §4; p. 4, §4.3).
Okada does not expressly disclose a correction unit that corrects errors of the optical flow and the depth, and an update unit that updates the tracking result based on the
Akiyama teaches an information processing device performing three-dimensional position estimation in which extracted image-derived quantities are corrected and the estimation result is updated based on the corrected quantities (Akiyama, paras. [0120]-[0134], figs. 13-14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Okada to correct the optical flow and depth errors and update the tracking result from the corrected values as taught by Akiyama (Akiyama, paras. [0120]-[0134]), in order to improve tracking accuracy when the reliability of an individual cue degrades.
Regarding Claim 2:
The proposed combination of Okada in view of Akiyama further discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the correction unit corrects the errors of the optical flow and the depth by using reliabilities of the optical flow and the depth.
Okada discloses that the reliabilities of the optical flow and depth are used, teaching that the observation covariance “is determined based on the contrast because the reliabilities of the flow vector and the disparity depend on the contrast” (Okada, p. 3, §4, Eq. (4)).
Regarding Claim 3:
The proposed combination of Okada in view of Akiyama further discloses the information processing device according to claim 2, wherein the update unit updates the tracking result based on centroid coordinates of the object recalculated using the corrected optical flow and depth.
Okada computes updated target position from the integrated cues (Okada, p. 3, §4.1), and
Akiyama teaches recalculating position coordinates from the corrected quantities (Akiyama, paras. [0120]-[0134], figs. 13-14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Okada to correct the optical flow and depth errors and update the tracking result from the corrected values as taught by Akiyama (Akiyama, paras. [0120]-[0134]), in order to improve tracking accuracy when the reliability of an individual cue degrades.
Regarding Claim 13:
The proposed rejection of device claim 1, over Okada in view of Akiyama is similarly cited to reject the steps of the method of claim 13 because these steps occur in the operation of the device as discussed above. Thus, the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 1 are equally applicable to claim 13.
Regarding Claim 14:
The proposed rejection of device claim 1 and method claim 13, over Okada in view of Akiyama is similarly cited to reject the steps of the computer readable medium of claim 14 because these steps occur in the operation of the device and method as discussed above. Thus, the arguments similar to that presented above for claims 1 and 13 are equally applicable to claim 14.
Allowable Subject Matter
17. Claims 4-12 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.
18. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 4:
None of the prior art disclose or suggest the information processing device according to claim 3, wherein the correction unit corrects the error of the depth by performing data fusion of the depth extracted from sensor data and an estimated depth estimated from the optical flow, according to the reliabilities of the optical flow and the depth.
Regarding Claim 5:
None of the prior art disclose or suggest the information processing device according to claim 3, wherein the correction unit corrects the error of the optical flow by performing data fusion of the optical flow extracted from image data and an estimated optical flow estimated from the depth, according to the reliabilities of the optical flow and the depth.
Regarding Claim 6:
None of the prior art disclose or suggest the information processing device according to claim 3, further comprising a tracking result integration unit that performs integration processing of obtaining as the tracking result of the object either a 2D tracking result of the object or a 3D tracking result of the object based on a detection result of the object obtained by performing instance segmentation on image data and based on the reliabilities of the optical flow and the depth.
Regarding Claim 7:
None of the prior art disclose or suggest the information processing device according to claim 6, wherein the tracking result integration unit performs the integration processing by comparing a 2D tracking reliability calculated from the detection result of the object and the reliability of the optical flow with a 3D tracking reliability calculated from the detection result of the object and the reliability of the depth.
Regarding Claim 8:
None of the prior art disclose or suggest the information processing device according to claim 6, further comprising a 2D centroid calculation unit that calculates 2D centroid coordinates of the object by 25 using the detection result of the object, the optical flow, and a reliability of the instance segmentation, wherein the 2D tracking result of the object is output based on the 2D centroid coordinates.
Regarding Claim 9:
None of the prior art disclose or suggest the information processing device according to claim 6, further comprising a 3D centroid calculation unit that calculates 3D centroid coordinates of the object by using the detection result of the object, the depth, and a reliability of the instance segmentation, wherein the 3D tracking result of the object is output based on the 3D centroid coordinates.
Regarding Claim 10:
None of the prior art disclose or suggest the information processing device according to claim 1, further comprising a feature extraction unit that extracts, by using a network, the optical flow from image data and the depth from sensor data, wherein the feature extraction unit optimizes the network based on the corrected optical flow and depth in a previous frame.
Regarding Claim 11:
None of the prior art disclose or suggest the information processing device according to claim 10, wherein the feature extraction unit extracts the depth by sensor fusion of an image sensor and a depth sensor separate from the image sensor.
Regarding Claim 12:
None of the prior art disclose or suggest the information processing device according to claim 11, wherein the depth sensor includes Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR).
Conclusion
19. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bankiti et al. (US 11,948,381) discloses a system that can use semantic images, lidar images, and/or 3D bounding boxes to determine mobility parameters for objects in the semantic image. In some cases, the system can generate virtual points for an object in a semantic image and associate the virtual points with lidar points to form denser point clouds for the object. The denser point clouds can be used to estimate the mobility parameters for the object. In certain cases, the system can use semantic images, lidar images, and/or 3D bounding boxes to determine an object sequence for an object. The object sequence can indicate a location of the particular object at different times. The system can use the object sequence to estimate the mobility parameters for the object.
20. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NEIL R MCLEAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1679. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 6AM - 4PM, 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, Akwasi M Sarpong can be reached at 571.270.3438. 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.
/NEIL R MCLEAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681
Prosecution Insights