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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a Final office action in merits. Claims 1-15, after amendment, are presently pending and have been elected and considered below.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. GB2202846.8, filed on 3/2/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/3/2024, 6/7/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0197805 A1, Robbel (hereinafter Robbel) in view of US 9,830,503 Bl, Martin et al. (hereinafter Martin).
As to claim 1, Robbel discloses a computer-implemented method for tracking an object, the method comprising:
receiving a real-time video feed (Figs 15-16; pars 0005-0006, 0056, video cameras capturing real-time video feed surrounding the vehicle);
for each frame of the video feed: determining a probability of existence of the object in the frame, (Figs 14-16, pars 0004-0006, 0114, 0117-0118, probability of collision including objects that may cause the collision being determined continuously (e.g. each frame of the video feed);
determining whether the object fulfils a set of close-range criteria (par 0116, Based on the probabilistic state of each object 1304, the object tracker circuit 1312 determines a distance from the object 1304 to the AV 100); and
generating an adjusted probability of existence based on the determination of whether the object fulfils the set of close-range criteria (par 0125, update an occupancy probability of each individual grid cell. Each occupancy probability represents a likelihood of presence of one or more of the classified objects).
Robbel does not expressly disclose wherein determining the probability of existence comprises, based on a lifecycle of object detection, indicating how long the object has been detected since a first frame of the video feed and determining whether the probability of existence of the object in the frame falls below a probability threshold to be used to determine whether the object fulfils a set of close-range criteria, wherein generating the adjusted probability of existence comprises resetting probability-of-existence extension information.
Martin, in the same or similar field of endeavor, further teaches wherein determining the probability of existence comprises, based on a lifecycle of object detection, indicating how long the object has been detected since a first frame of the video feed (col 4, lines 2-13; col 8, lines 19-25, 37-67; col 9, lines 1-9, the probability of existence being detected based on time period with specified frames in the video feed); determining whether the probability of existence of the object in the frame falls below a probability threshold (col 8, lines 0054, For example, the video processing device can compare the probabilities associated with regions 214, 216, 218, 220 to a probability threshold). Martin also teaches The ROI can be modified (e.g., expanded or contracted) by modifying the probability threshold value (col 9, lines 26-61) and weighting the region probabilities (P1, P2, P3, P4) by TP1 may reduce the probabilities of all of the regions below the probability threshold (col 9, lines 35-61), determining whether the probability of existence of the object in the frame falls below a probability threshold to be used to determine whether the object fulfils a set of close-range criteria, wherein generating the adjusted probability of existence comprises resetting probability-of-existence extension information (col 8, lines 26-34; col 9, lines 1- col 10, 3, probability threshold being modified/reset for identifying/detecting ROI and objects in the ROI).
Therefore, consider Robbel and Martin’s teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art before the filing date of invention to incorporate Martin’s teachings in Robbel’s method in order to optimize computing resources by evaluating if tracked object probabilities fall below a threshold.
As to claim 2, Robbel as modified discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein generating the adjusted probability of existence is further based on a difference between the adjusted probability of existence of the object in a preceding frame and the probability of existence of the object in the frame (Robbel: Figs 14-16, object tracker circuit track the object from continuously captured sensor data to determine and update probability state due to environment changes; pars 0004-0006, 0111, 0114-0118).
As to claim 13, it recites a non-transitory CRM with instructions executed to perform functions and features of claim 1. Rejection of claim 1 is therefore incorporated herein.
As to claim 14, it is a device claim encompassed claim 1. Rejection of claim 1 is therefore incorporated herein.
As to claim 15, it is a system claim encompassed claim 1. Rejection of claim 1 is therefore incorporated herein.
Claims 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robbel in view of Martin and further in view of US 2022/0024428 A1, Yang et al. (hereinafter Yang).
As to claim 3, Robbel as modified discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1 but does not expressly teach determining a probability decremental value based on the determination of whether the object fulfils the set of close-range criteria. Yang, in the same or similar field of endeavor, further teaches decreasing an occupancy probability using a weight based on a specific area (pars 0028, assign a third weight to occupancy information corresponding to a third area to reduce an occupancy probability corresponding to the third area). Therefore, consider Robbel as modified and Yang’s teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art before the filing date of invention to incorporate Yang’s teachings in Robbel as modified’ method to provide a probability decremental value based on specific area/close-range criteria to adjust tracking robustness without hindsight).
As to claim 4, Robbel as modified discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 3, wherein determining the probability decremental value comprises assigning a first value to the probability decremental value based on determining that the object fulfils the set of close-range criteria, and further comprises assigning a second value to the probability decremental value based on determining that the object does not fulfil the set of close-range criteria, wherein the first value is smaller than the second value (Yang: par 0010, assigning a first weight to occupancy information of a first area that is measured in real time, and assigning a second weight greater than the first weight to occupancy information of a second area. Therefore, incorporating Yang’s teachings into Robbel to scale probability reductions based on whether specific spatial/close-range conditions are fulfilled is a predictable use of Yang's weighted areas).
As to claim 5, Robbel as modified discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 3, further comprising: determining whether a difference between the adjusted probability of existence of a preceding frame and the probability of existence of the object in the frame exceeds the probability decremental value (Yang: par 0123, decrease the occupancy probability of the obstacle undetected area cell by a third weight at each time. Note: rate-limiting the maximum allowed change (difference) between frames against a maximum step (decremental value) is a universally known software technique to smooth noise. It would be obvious to apply this difference check to combined teachings of probability tracking states to ensure tracking stability).
As to claim 6, Robbel as modified discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 5, wherein generating the adjusted probability of existence comprises deducting the decremental value from the adjusted probability of the preceding frame, based on determining that the difference exceeds the probability decremental value (Yang: par 0123, rate-limiting the maximum allowed change (difference) between frames against a maximum step (decremental value) is a universally known software technique to smooth noise. It would be obvious to apply this difference check to the combined teachings of probability tracking states to ensure tracking stability).
As to claim 7, Robbel as modified discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 5, wherein generating the adjusted probability of existence comprises setting the probability of existence of the object in the frame as the adjusted probability of existence, based on determining that the difference does not exceed the probability decremental value (Yang: par 0123, Note, if a calculated difference does not exceed the imposed limit (decremental value), it is a predictable and standard operation to accept and set the newly calculated probability without deduction).
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robbel in view of Martin and further in view of US 2023/0119420 A1, Kang (hereinafter Kang)
As to claim 10, Robbel as modified discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1 but does not expressly teach setting a close-range extension counter based on a time-to-collision between the object and a vehicle, based on determining that the object fulfils the set of close-range criteria. Kang, in the same or similar field of endeavor, further teaches computing a time-to-collision and delaying a response (par 0013, compute a time-to-collision and an impact point; par 0017, delay generation of a warning). Therefore, consider Robbel as modified and Kang’s teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art before the filing date of invention to incorporate Kang’s teachings in Robbel as modified’s method to implement this delay via setting a counter based on the calculated time-to-collision which is a standard mechanism for scheduling time-based boundaries. The combined teachings therefore allow the system to schedule close-range tracking extensions based on collision metrics.
As to claim 11, Robbel as modified discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 10, further comprising: decrementing the close-range extension counter, based on determining that the probability of existence is lower than the probability threshold (Martin:col 8, lines 26-34, col 9, lines 1-34; Kang: par 0017).
As to claim 12, Robbel as modified discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 10, further comprising: determining whether the object fulfils the set of close-range criteria, further based on determining that the close-range extension counter of a preceding frame is more than zero (Kang: par 0017, when the generation of the warning is delayed for a predetermined time or longer, may generate the warning, i.e. holding an active delay state until a predetermined time expires (i.e. until counter being zero)).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robbel in view of Martin and further in view of US 2023/0119420 A1, Kang (hereinafter Kang) and CN112767448A, Zhang et al., see google translate for citation (hereinafter Zhang).
As to claim 8, Robbel as modified discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1 but does not expressly teach turning on an extend-prediction flag, based on determining that the object fulfils the set of close-range criteria; and incrementing an extend-prediction time limit. Kang, in the same or similar field of endeavor, further teaches (par 0017, delay generation of a warning).
Zhang, in the same or similar field of endeavor, additionally teaches stopping the updating of the target model and expanding the search range (claim 4). An ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that Using a software flag to trigger this extended prediction state and incrementing a time limit counter to enforce the delay are universally known programming techniques. Therefore, consider Robbel as modified, Kang, and Zhang’s teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art before the filing date of invention to incorporate Kang and Zhang’s teachings in Robbel as modified’s method to improve robust tracking during temporary occlusion.
As to claim 9, Robbel as modified discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 8, further comprising: determining whether an age of the object in the video feed exceeds the extend-prediction time limit; and resetting the extend-prediction time limit based on determining that the age of the object in the video feed exceeds the extend-prediction time limit (Kang: par 0017, when the generation of the warning is delayed for a predetermined time or longer, may generate the warning, i.e., determining if the delayed time exceeds a predetermined time limit to trigger an action. Automatically resetting a timer after a threshold condition is met is a basic and necessary implementation for reusable state machines).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but they are not persuasive. Additional citations and rejections have been provided in merit rejection above to address applicant’s arguments and/or amendments. See merit rejection above for detains.
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.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular column, line number, paragraphs and/or figure(s) in the reference(s) as applied to the claims for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of 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 from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the reference(s) 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUN SHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7927. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 8:30-5:50 PT.
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, Amandeep Saini can be reached on 571-272-3382. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/QUN SHEN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2662
Prosecution Insights