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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation at lines 15-21 “in an evaluation action, evaluating whether the observation and/or the path fulfills the region tracking condition of the region or not, and wherein the method comprises: retaining, based on the evaluation action, the observation and/or the path in continued tracking of the object, or discarding, based on the evaluation action, the observation and/or the path from continued tracking of the object,” (for the purpose of examination, due to the recital of and/or, “or” is interpreted), and the claim also recites at lines 22-26 “wherein the region tracking condition comprises one or more of: a second instruction that the path shall be discarded when the path, including the observation, (interpreted as the path including (and) the observation) which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Claims 2-14 depends from claim 1, therefore they are rejected.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 15 recites the broad recitation at lines 17-23 “in an evaluation action, evaluating whether the observation and/or the path fulfills the region tracking condition of the region or not, and wherein the method comprises: retaining, based on the evaluation action, the observation and/or the path in continued tracking of the object, or discarding, based on the evaluation action, the observation and/or the path from continued tracking of the object,” (for the purpose of examination, due to the recital of and/or, “or” is interpreted), and the claim also recites at lines 24-27 “wherein the region tracking condition comprises one or more of: a second instruction that the path shall be discarded when the path, including the observation, (interpreted as the path including (and) the observation) which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Claims 16-17 depends from claim 15, therefore they are rejected.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 18 recites the broad recitation at lines 15-21 “in an evaluation action, evaluating whether the observation and/or the path fulfills the region tracking condition of the region or not, and wherein the method comprises: retaining, based on the evaluation action, the observation and/or the path in continued tracking of the object, or discarding, based on the evaluation action, the observation and/or the path from continued tracking of the object,” (for the purpose of examination, due to the recital of and/or, “or” is interpreted), and the claim also recites at lines 22-25 “wherein the region tracking condition comprises one or more of: a second instruction that the path shall be discarded when the path, including the observation, (interpreted as the path including (and) the observation) which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Claims 19-20 depends from claim 18, therefore they are rejected.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 3 recites at lines 5-8 “the retaining comprises including the observation in the path when the region tracking condition is fulfilled, and the discarding comprises discarding the observation when the region tracking condition is rejected.” Claim 3 depends from claim 1 and claim 1 recites at lines 18-21 “retaining, based on the evaluation action, the observation and/or the path in continued tracking of the object, or discarding, based on the evaluation action, the observation and/or the path from continued tracking of the object,”. The recitals of “or” in claim 1 and the recital of “and” in claim 3 renders the claim infinite. Also, the examiner notes that if a condition is being evaluated the outcome is only one “i.e retain or discard”. Amendments/clarification are required.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forsgren et al. (US20220138969) hereafter Forsgren in view of U S et al. (20130022234) hereafter US
1. Regarding claim 1, as best understood by the examiner, Forsgren discloses a method, performed by a computing apparatus, for managing tracking of an object moving in a three-dimensional environment, wherein the method (figs 1A-3, paras 0007-0008, 0162-0163 discloses a method, performed by a computing apparatus, for managing tracking of an object moving in a three-dimensional environment) discloses comprises:
obtaining an indication of a region and a region tracking condition to be applied to the tracking of the object in the region, wherein the region pertains to a portion of a field of view of an electromagnetic sensor for tracking of the object in the three-dimensional environment (figs, 1A-3, paras 0030-0033, 0063, 0051-0058, 0085, 0095 shows and discloses obtaining an indication of a region and a region tracking condition to be applied to the tracking of the object in the region (paras 0051-0058 discloses identifying 315 to detect objects of interest at specific locations in the camera images (i.e an electromagnetic senor in the visual range of the spectrum) , obtaining an indication of a region and region tracking condition i.e blobs (region) over three or more frames (region tracking condition) that indicate object movement consistent with that of an object in Newtonian motion meeting the claim limitations, wherein the region pertains to a portion of a field of view of an electromagnetic sensor (one or more sensors 130 including the camera 120) for tracking of the object in the three-dimensional environment),
obtaining an observation relating to the tracking of the object, wherein the observation is generated based on at least one two-dimensional representation of the field of view, wherein said at least one two-dimensional representation has been captured by the electromagnetic sensor, and wherein the observation is includable in a set of observations defining a path of the object in the field of view (paras 0056, 0058-0059, 0085, 0094 and 0103-0104, 0066, 0159 discloses the above limitations, para 0058 discloses determining that the observation matches the region (i.e when the frame (observation) of blobs (region) is to be processed, all blobs (region) in the new frame (observation) can be matched to all the tree nodes that were added during processing of the previous frame to see if the blob can be a possible continuation of that path, depending on how much the point in this branch looks like desired motion of the object, as defined by the motion criterion meeting the above claim limitations),
determining that the observation matches the region (paras 0058-0059 discloses determining that the observation matches the region (i.e when the frame of blobs (region) is to be processed (observed), all blobs (region) in the new frame (observation) can be matched to all the tree nodes that were added during processing of the previous frame to see if the blob can be a possible continuation of that path, depending on how much the point in this branch looks like desired motion, as defined by the motion criterion meeting the above claim limitations),
in an evaluation action, evaluating whether or the path fulfills the region tracking condition of the region or not, and wherein the method comprises:
retaining, based on the evaluation action, (para 0056 discloses “This looser (benefit of doubt) approach means that a much simpler tracking algorithm can be used at 320, knowing that it does not need to be perfect at discriminating desired objects (e.g., golf balls) from undesired objects (e.g., non-golf balls). The set of rules defining the tracking can be reduced to a minimum, and any mistakes made by the 2D tracking (as in letting a non-golf ball pass through) can be filtered out by the downstream components and processing. Instead of emitting entire trajectory paths, which each have one starting point and one ending point, the found 320 sequences can be represented by a “rooted tree” in which each vertex (node in the tree) is an observed blob (in x, y, and time t) and each edge is a possible movement between locations of an object whose motion is being tracked” and para 0069 discloses In addition, it should be noted that the same location of interest in a single image frame can be added as respective sub-nodes (of first or higher depths) to two or more rooted trees that are keeping track of potential object paths through the image frames (i.e retaing the path in the continued tracking of the object) meeting the above claim limitations, examiner notes that due to the recital of or only one is required to be met),
or
(due to the recital of or the strike through limitations are not required to be met),
wherein the region tracking condition is based on (if the object has jagged (i.e rapid motion) or if the speed of the ball is less than the threshold value) (disclosed in paras 0085, 0145 and 0155). Forsgren is silent and however fails to disclose wherein the region tracking condition comprises one or more of:
a second instruction that the path shall be discarded when the path, including the observation, fulfils a criterion relating to a speed and/or a jaggedness,
a third instruction that the observation shall be discarded, and that the observation shall be replaced with an extrapolated observation derived from the path, in which the observation is not included,
a fourth instruction that the observation shall be included in order to continue the tracking of the object, while not allowing use of an extrapolated observation derived from the path, in which the observation is not included,
a fifth instruction that the observation, comprising a blob, shall be discarded when a brightness of the blob is less than a brightness of a background at the blob.
US discloses wherein the region tracking condition comprises one or
a second instruction that the path shall be discarded when the path, including the observation, fulfils a criterion relating to a speed or (paras 0010-0011, 0018-0019, 0027 and 0038 a second instruction obtaining spatiotemporal information (i.e observation) that the path (trajectory) shall be discarded when the path, including the observation, fulfils a criterion relating to a speed (i.e a large difference in the travel speeds of two subsequent track points and if there is a speed-difference threshold) meeting the above claim limitations),
or
paras 0027, 0038. Therefore, it would be obvious and within one of ordinary skill in the art to have recognized the advantages of U S in the method/system/apparatus of Forsgren to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
2. Regarding claim 2, see the explanation of claim 1. Due to the recital of one or more and or in claim 1, the limitations of claim 2 are not required to be met.
3. Regarding claim 3, see the explanation of claim 1. Due to the recital of or in claim 1, the limitations of claim 3 are not required to be met.
4. Regarding claim 4, see the explanation of claim 1. Due to the recital of or in claim 1, the limitations of claim 4 are not required to be met.
5. Regarding claim 5, see the explanation of claim 1. Due to the recital of one or more and or in claim 1, the limitations of claim 5 are not required to be met.
6. Regarding claim 6, see the explanation of claim 1. Due to the recital of or in claim 1, the limitations of claim 6 are not required to be met.
7. Regarding claim 7, see the explanation of claim 1. Due to the recital of one or more and or in claim 1, the limitations of claim 7 are not required to be met.
8. Regarding claim 8, see the explanation of claim 1. Due to the recital of one or more and or in claim 1, the limitations of claim 8 are not required to be met.
9. Regarding claim 9, see the explanation of claim 1. Due to the recital of one or more and or in claim 1, the limitations of claim 9 are not required to be met.
10. Regarding claim 10, Forsgren and U S disclose the method according to claim 1. Forsgren disclose further wherein the obtaining comprises obtaining a further indication of a further region and a further region tracking condition to be applied to the tracking of the object in the further region, wherein the further region pertains to a portion of the field of view (paras 0030, 0031, 0053, 0058, 166, figure 4A discloses sequence of blobs or objects meeting the claim limitations of further indication of a further region and a further region tracking condition to be applied to the tracking of the object in the further region, wherein the further region pertains to a portion of the field of view).
11. Regarding claim 11, Forsgren and U S disclose the method according to claim 10. Forsgren discloses further wherein the obtaining comprises receiving the further indication and the further region tracking condition as user input (para 0160, 0166 discloses a user input and 0030, 0031, 0053, 0058, 166, figure 4A discloses sequence of blobs of objects meeting the limitations of wherein the obtaining comprises receiving the further indication and the further region tracking condition as user input).
12. Regarding claim 12, Forsgren and U S disclose the method according to claim 10. Forsgren discloses further wherein the region partially overlaps with the further region and both of the region and the further region cover less than all of the field of view (para 0112 discloses matching detections between different sensors regardless of partial trajectories overlap completely meeting the limitations of wherein the region partially overlaps with the further region and both of the region and the further region cover less than all of the field of view).
13. Regarding claim 13 see the explanation of claim 1. Due to the recital of one or more and or in claim 1, the limitations of claim 10 are not required to be met.
14. Regarding claim 14, see the explanation of claim 1. Due to the recital of “or” in claim 1, the limitations of claim 14 are not required to be met.
15. Claim 15 is a corresponding apparatus claim of claim 1. See the explanation of claim 1. Para 0162 discloses an apparatus.
16. Claim 16 is a corresponding apparatus claim of claim 10. See the explanation of claim 10.
17. Claim 17 is a corresponding apparatus claim of claim 12. See the explanation of claim 12.
18. Claim 18 is a corresponding non-transitory computer readable medium claim of claim 1. See the corresponding explanation of claim 1. Para 0161 discloses non-transitory computer readable medium.
19. Claim 19 is a corresponding non-transitory computer readable medium claim of claim 10. See the explanation of claim 10.
20. Claim 20 is a corresponding non-transitory computer readable medium claim of claim 12. See the explanation of claim 12.
Examiner's Note: Examiner has cited figures, and paragraphs in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested for the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Examiner has also cited references in PTO892 but not relied on, which are relevant and pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure, and may also be reading (anticipatory/obvious) on the claims and claimed limitations. Applicant is advised to consider the references in preparing the response/amendments in-order to expedite the prosecution.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAYESH PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1227. The examiner can normally be reached IFW Mon-FRI.
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 Bee can be reached at 571-270-5183. 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.
/JAYESH PATEL/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2677
/JAYESH A PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2677
Prosecution Insights