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 Amendment
Claims 17-18 are added. Claims 1-18 are pending in this application.
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) 1-11, 13-16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Germann et al., US 2011/0267344 in view of Taneda et al., US 2023/0153995.
Regarding claim 1, Germann discloses an information processing apparatus (para 0140; an apparatus performs the image processing computations) comprising:
at least one memory configured to store instructions (para 0113; a computer memory stores the computer-readable instructions); and
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions (para 0113; a processing unit executes the computer-readable instructions) to:
estimate, based on a plurality of query images acquired by capturing a subject performing a predetermined action a plurality of times (para 0016-0017 and 0026-0027; obtaining at least one source image from a video stream comprising a view of the real world object recorded by a source camera; The motion compensation step compensates, in a known manner, for e.g. movement of the source camera and/or the real world object), and a reference image including a person associated with a predetermined pose (para 0018; maintaining, in a database in computer readable form, a set of reference silhouettes, each reference silhouette being associated with an articulated object model and with a particular reference pose of this articulated object model), a pose of the subject indicated in each of the plurality of query images (para 0019-0023, 0035-0038, and 0045-0054; comparing the at least one source image segment to the reference silhouettes and selecting a predetermined number of reference silhouettes by taking into account, for each reference silhouette; computing an estimate of the pose of the articulated object model from the reference poses of the selected reference silhouettes. This pose is the 2D pose of the articulated object model in the source image, so for each of the source images, a separate 2D pose is estimated).
Germann further discloses computing the coherence error as being proportional to the difference between this preceding pose estimate and the reference pose of the reference silhouette, and using this coherence error as a measure of consistency with the preceding source image. On a display device, at least one source image with estimated joint positions superimposed over the source image (para 0045 and 0065).
Germann discloses claim 1 as enumerated above, but Germann does not explicitly disclose cause a display, in a case where a query image in which an estimation result is different is included in the plurality of query images, to display a query image in which the different estimation is made as claimed.
However, Taneda discloses a frame image determined to have an abnormality may be displayed in the image display region 341b of the examination screen 341. Alternatively, the frame number 342b of a frame image determined to have an abnormality may be displayed on the examination screen 341 (para 0108).
Therefore, taking the combined disclosures of Germann and Taneda as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a frame image determined to have an abnormality may be displayed in the image display region 341b of the examination screen 341. Alternatively, the frame number 342b of a frame image determined to have an abnormality may be displayed on the examination screen 341 as taught by Taneda into the invention of Germann for the benefit of shorten the processing time required for determining an abnormality in a captured dynamic image (Taneda: para 0006).
Regarding claim 2, the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, Germann in the combination further discloses wherein the plurality of query images are query images in time series (para 0016-0017; video stream is in time series).
Regarding claim 3, the information processing apparatus according to claim 2, Germann in the combination further discloses wherein, the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to, in a case where an estimation result with respect to the query image in time series is repeatedly different a predetermined number of times or more, cause the display to display a query image in which the different estimation is repeatedly made (para 0049-0052, 0056, and 0097-0099).
Regarding claim 4, the information processing apparatus according to claim 3, Germann in the combination further discloses wherein
the reference image is one or plural (para 0018),
the at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to:
derive a similarity related to a pose between a subject indicated in the query image, and a person indicated in the reference image, for each of combinations of the query image in time series, and the one or the plurality of reference images (para 0019-0023, 0035-0038, and 0045-0054); and
estimate, based on the similarity, a pose of the subject indicated in each of the query images in time series (para 0019-0023, 0035-0038, and 0045-0054); and,
in a case where a query image in which an estimation result is false is present among the query image in time series in which the different estimation is repeatedly made, cause the display to display the reference image indicating a person in which the similarity to a subject indicated in a query image in which the false estimation is made satisfies a predetermined criterion among the one or the plurality of reference images (para 0056 and 0097-0099).
Regarding claim 5, the information processing apparatus according to claim 2, Germann in the combination further discloses wherein
the at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to:
acquire a frame image in time series to be acquired by capturing the subject timewise sequentially a plurality of times (para 0016-0017 and 0026-0027), wherein
the plurality of query images are frame images to be acquired by thinning out a part from the frame image in time series (para 0096); and
cause the display to display at least one frame image thinned from a query image in time series in which the different decision is made (para 0056 and 0097-0099).
Regarding claim 6, the information processing apparatus according to claim 5, Germann in the combination further discloses wherein
the at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to:
estimate, based on the at least one thinned frame image, and the reference image, a pose of a subject indicated in the frame image (para 0019-0023, 0035-0038, 0045-0054, and 0096).
Regarding claim 7, the information processing apparatus according to claim 2, Germann in the combination further discloses wherein,
the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to,
in a case where a pose is estimated not to be the predetermined pose immediately after the pose is sequentially estimated to be the predetermined pose by a predetermined number or more with respect to the query image in time series, cause to display a query image in which the pose is decided not to be the predetermined pose (para 0056 and 0097-0099).
Regarding claim 8, the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, Germann in the combination further discloses wherein
the at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to:
decide whether a query image in which an estimation result is different is included in the plurality of query images (para 0019-0023, 0035-0038, and 0045-0054).
Regarding claim 9, the information processing apparatus according to claim 8, Germann in the combination further discloses wherein
the at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to:
decide whether an estimation result regarding the plurality of query images corresponds to a predetermined false estimation pattern (para 0019-0023, 0035-0038, and 0045-0054),
the false estimation pattern being a pattern of an estimation result related to a pose of a subject included in each of a plurality of query images, and including a different estimation result with respect to another query image regarding at least one query image (para 0019-0023, 0035-0038, and 0045-0054); and,
in a case of being decided that an estimation result regarding the plurality of query images corresponds to the false estimation pattern, cause the display to display a query image associated with the false estimation pattern (para 0056 and 0097-0099).
Regarding claim 10, the information processing apparatus according to claim 9, Germann in the combination further discloses wherein
the false estimation pattern includes at least one of a pattern in which an estimation result with respect to a query image in time series is repeatedly different a predetermined number of times or more, and a pattern being estimated not to be the predetermined pose immediately after a pose is sequentially estimated to be the predetermined pose by a predetermined number or more with respect to a query image in time series (para 0019-0023, 0035-0038, and 0045-0054).
Regarding claim 11, the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, Germann in the combination further discloses wherein the plurality of times of capturing is performed concurrently from two or more different directions (para 0016-0017 and 0081).
Regarding claim 13, the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, Germann in the combination further discloses wherein the plurality of query images are images indicating the subject being common (fig. 1, element 14; para 0140).
Regarding claim 14, this claim recites substantially the same limitations that are performed by claim 1 above, and it is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 15, this claim recites substantially the same limitations that are performed by claim 1 above, and it is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 16, this claim recites substantially the same limitations that are performed by claim 1 above, and it is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 18, the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, Germann and Taneda in the combination further disclose wherein:
the plurality of query images are query images in time series (Germann: para 0016-0017 and Taneda: para 0070 and 0076-0079);
the plurality of query images are acquired by thinning out a part of a frame image in time series (Taneda: para 0076-0079); and
in a case where the query image in which the estimation result is different is displayed (Taneda: para 0108), the thinned frame image positioned between the query images is displayed (Taneda: figs. 5-6; para 0076-0079, 0113, and 0117).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Germann et al., US 2011/0267344 in view of Taneda et al., US 2023/0153995 and further in view of O’Doherty et al., US 2007/0200928.
Regarding claim 12, the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, Germann and Taneda in the combination disclose wherein the plurality of times of capturing is performed (Germann: para 0016-0017).
Germann and Taneda in the combination disclose claim 12 as enumerated above, but Germann and Taneda in the combination do not explicitly disclose capturing is performed while an automated teller machine is operated as claimed.
However, O’Doherty discloses a surveillance system for an ATM utilizing multiple cameras aimed at the user to record images after a sensor is activated (para 0008).
Therefore, taking the combined disclosures of Germann, Taneda, and O’Doherty as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a surveillance system for an ATM utilizing multiple cameras aimed at the user to record images after a sensor is activated as taught by O’Doherty into the inventions of Germann and Taneda for the benefit of preventing fraudulent attack (O’Doherty: para 0003).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Germann et al., US 2011/0267344 in view of Taneda et al., US 2023/0153995 and further in view of Li et al., US 2021/0158593.
Regarding claim 17, the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, Germann and Taneda in the combination further disclose wherein:
the plurality of query images are query images in time series (Germann: para 0016-0017 and Taneda: para 0070 and 0076-0079), and
the case where a query image in which an estimation result is different is included in the plurality of query images (Taneda: para 0108).
Germann and Taneda in the combination disclose claim 17 as enumerated above, but Germann and Taneda in the combination do not disclose corresponds to
However Li discloses a frame group includes a set of consecutive frames, and represents a single pose of the subject. To determine how the plurality of frames should be grouped into frame groups, the pose selection system may use the hand type for each frame, or the set of joint positions for each frame, or both. More specifically, to construct the frame groups, the pose selection system analyzes each frame in consecutive (temporal) order. When a group is started, the next analyzed frame is added it to the current frame group unless the analysis determines that the frame does not belong in that frame group. For example, the analysis determines that the hand type of the frame is different than the previous frame, or in other words the last frame to be added to that frame group. In another example, the analysis determines that the Euclidean distance between the frame's feature vector and the feature vector of the last frame in the frame group is greater than a particular threshold (e.g. a threshold of 60). If a frame does not belong in the current frame group, a new frame group is started, and the frame is put in that new frame group (para 0037).
Therefore, taking the combined disclosures of Germann, Taneda, and Li as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a frame group includes a set of consecutive frames, and represents a single pose of the subject. To determine how the plurality of frames should be grouped into frame groups, the pose selection system may use the hand type for each frame, or the set of joint positions for each frame, or both. More specifically, to construct the frame groups, the pose selection system analyzes each frame in consecutive (temporal) order. When a group is started, the next analyzed frame is added it to the current frame group unless the analysis determines that the frame does not belong in that frame group. For example, the analysis determines that the hand type of the frame is different than the previous frame, or in other words the last frame to be added to that frame group. In another example, the analysis determines that the Euclidean distance between the frame's feature vector and the feature vector of the last frame in the frame group is greater than a particular threshold (e.g. a threshold of 60). If a frame does not belong in the current frame group, a new frame group is started, and the frame is put in that new frame group as taught by Li into the inventions of Germann and Taneda for the benefit of pose selection using data analytics techniques applied to training data (Li: para 0001).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-18 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VAN D HUYNH whose telephone number is (571)270-1937. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-6PM.
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.
/VAN D HUYNH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2665
Prosecution Insights