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 § 101
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.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 15:
Step 1:
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are directed towards a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter which is/are statutory subject matter.
Step 2A:
Prong 1:
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are directed an idea for video processing which is an abstract idea.
Consideration of the claimed elements:
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 15:
The claims in the instant application include:
detect a tracking target from an input video;
predict a trajectory of the tracking target in the video; and
track the tracking target, and when there is a missing region in the video, estimate a position of the tracking target in the missing region using a prediction result of the trajectory.
Regarding “detect a tracking target from an input video”, it can be interpreted as a human can observe/detect a tracking target from an input video. The claimed limitation can be broadly read as a concept performed by a human mind, thus categorized as mental processes.
Regarding “predict a trajectory of the tracking target in the video,” it can be interpreted as the human can predict a trajectory of the tracking target in the video; or predicting a trajectory using formulas or algorithms. The claimed limitation can be categorized as mental processes, or mathematical concepts.
Regarding “track the tracking target, and when there is a missing region in the video, estimate a position of the tracking target in the missing region using a prediction result of the trajectory,” it can be interpreted as the human can mentally estimate a position or calculating the missing region; or predicting a trajectory using formulas or algorithms. The claimed limitation can be categorized as mental processes, or mathematical concepts.
As analyzed above, the above claimed limitations are mental processes or mathematical concepts.
Prong 2:
The claims include additional elements of
system, apparatus, processor, and memory.
Regarding “system, apparatus, processor, and memory”, they are computer hardware / software. It is considered as “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
They are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Moreover, the claim limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Thus, the recited generic additional element (e.g., system, apparatus, processor, and memory) perform no more than their basic computer function. Generic computer-implementation of a method is not a meaningful limitation that alone can amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Moreover, when viewed as a whole with such additional element considered as an ordered combination, claims modified by adding a computational algorithm, a generic memory and processor are nothing more than a purely conventional computerized implementation of an idea in the general field of computer processing and do not provide significantly more than an abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claims are directed to an idea of itself, and therefore not patent eligible.
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception such as improvements to another technology or technical field, or other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Moreover, the claim language that may be separate from the abstract idea (i.e., additional elements) include computer processors, computer-readable storage media.
The additional element (e.g., system, apparatus, processor, and memory) simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (WURC) - see MPEP 2106.05(d) and 2106.07(a)III.
Thus, the recited generic additional elements (e.g., system, apparatus, processor, and memory) perform no more than their basic computer function. Generic computer-implementation of a method is not a meaningful limitation that alone can amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Moreover, when viewed as a whole with such additional element considered as an ordered combination, claims modified by adding a generic memory are nothing more than a purely conventional computerized implementation of an idea in the general field of computer processing and do not provide significantly more than an abstract idea.
Consequently, the identified additional elements taken into consideration individually or in combination fails to amount of significantly more than the abstract idea above.
Regarding claims 2 – 7, 9 – 14 and 16 – 20, the rejection is based on the same rationale described for claims 1, 8 and 15 because the claims include/inherit the same/similar type of problematic limitation(s) as claims 1, 8 and 15, wherein limitations regarding additional aspect for process; "determine ... ", "assign ... ", “calculate …”, “stop …”, “is not …”, “learn …”, “predict …”, “acquire …” and “specify …”, is/are of sufficient breadth that it would be substantially directed to or reasonably interpreted as a part of the “mental processes” as the abstract idea (similar to claim as stated above). It is noted that further additional limitation is merely generic/conventional computer component/steps to implement the abstract idea, which is, individually or in combination, not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the claimed invention as a whole is directed to an ineligible subject matter.
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 – 5, 8 – 12 and 15 – 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujiwara et al. (Japan Patent Application Publication JP 2009-268005, IDS), hereinafter referred as Fujiwara, in view of Ishida et al. (Japan Patent Application Publication JP 2008-219479, IDS), hereinafter referred as Ishida.
Regarding claim 1, Fujiwara discloses a video processing system (Fig. 1) comprising:
at least one memory storing instructions (Fig. 1, #22), and
at least one processor (Fig. 1, #20) configured to execute the instructions to:
detect a tracking target from an input video (Fig. 2, S1 – S3, page 5 – 6);
predict a trajectory of the tracking target in the video (Fig. 2, S4, page 6); and
track the tracking target, and when there is a missing region in the video, estimate a position of the tracking target in the missing region using a prediction result of the trajectory (Fig. 2, S7 – S9, page 6 – 7).
However, if the Applicant argues that the missing region in the video refers to missing portions of frames in the video (such as a degraded video).
However, in a similar field of endeavor Ishida discloses an image transmission system that can perform real-time display of a captured image and smooth moving image display even when the load state of the network changes (page 2, para. 4). In addition, Ishida discloses the system wherein the image can be restored from the compressed state (page 11 – 12, [Explanation of restoration process operation]).
There was some teaching, suggestion, or motivation, either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the reference or to combine reference teachings to achieve the claimed limitation.
There was reasonable expectation of success to arrive at the claimed limitation (KSR scenario G).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Fujiwara, and when there is a missing region in the video, estimate a position of the tracking target in the missing region using a prediction result of the trajectory. The motivation for doing this is that the Application of Fujiwara can be extended so that when a missing area occurs in the process of collection, processing, compression, transmission and decompression of video image information can also be restored.
Regarding claim 2 (depends on claim 1), Fujiwara discloses the video processing system wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to: determine whether the tracking target tracked by the tracking of the tracking target is the same as a detected tracking target; and assign identification information to the detected tracking target (page 6, para. 6, “estimated geometric features, identity determination is performed”; page 7, para. 2).
Regarding claim 3 (depends on claim 2), Fujiwara discloses the video processing system, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to: calculate a prediction reliability indicating a reliability of prediction of the tracking target, and stop the tracking of the tracking target according to the prediction reliability (page 7, para. 2, “if the disappearance time is less than or equal to the disappearance confirmation time, the estimated position and estimated geometric feature obtained previously are. The estimated intruder state is maintained. Then, with respect to the estimated intruder state (estimated position, estimated geometric feature amount) of the intruder E13 at time t5, the position of the intruder I13 detected from the image data input this time is in the vicinity, and the intruder I13 If the geometrical feature amount of is approximate, it is determined that the intruder I13 is the same as the intruder I11 and the intruder 112 (steps SS -> S7 -> S8 in FIG. 2).).
Regarding claim 4 (depends on claim 3), Fujiwara discloses the video processing system wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to: calculate a detection reliability indicating a reliability of detection of the tracking target, calculate a trajectory reliability indicating a reliability of the trajectory of the tracking target based on the detection reliability and the prediction reliability, and stop the tracking of the tracking target according to the trajectory reliability (page 7, para. 2).
Regarding claim 5 (depends on claim 4), Fujiwara discloses the video processing system wherein the trajectory reliability is not decreased while the tracking target is in the missing region (page 7, para. 2, “if the disappearance time is less than or equal to the disappearance confirmation time, the estimated position and estimated geometric feature obtained previously are. The estimated intruder state is maintained.”).
Regarding claims 8 – 12, they are corresponding to claims 1 – 5, respectively, thus, they are interpreted and rejected for a same reason set forth for claims 1 – 5.
Regarding claims 15 – 19, they are corresponding to claims 1 – 5, respectively, thus, they are interpreted and rejected for a same reason set forth for claims 1 – 5.
Claim(s) 6 – 7, 13 – 14 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujiwara in view of Ishida, and in further view of Sabirin et al. (Japan Patent Application Publication JP 2016-162075, IDS), hereinafter referred as Sabirin.
Regarding claim 6 (depends on claim 1), Fujiwara discloses the video processing system wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to: perform an operation according to a type of the tracking target, when the missing region appears, specify the type of the tracking target appearing in a frame before the missing region appears (page 6 – 7, estimate/specify geometric feature), and predict the operation of the tracking target in the missing region from a result of the performed operation and the specified type of the tracking target (page 6 – 7).
However, Fujiwara fails to explicitly disclose wherein the performed operation is a learn operation.
However, in a similar field of endeavor Sabirin discloses a system for object tracking (abstract). In addition, Sabirin discloses the system wherein perform a learn operation (page 8, para. 1 – 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Fujiwara, and perform a learn operation. The motivation for doing this is to use an artificial intelligence that the prediction can be more accurate.
Regarding claim 7 (depends on claim 1), Fujiwara discloses the video processing system wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to: acquire the tracking target to which a position is assigned, when the missing region appears, specify a position of the tracking target appearing in a frame before the missing region appears, and predict the position of the tracking target in the missing region from the specified position of the tracking target (page 6 – 7).
However, Fujiwara fails to explicitly disclose wherein a motion vector is assigned.
However, in a similar field of endeavor Sabirin discloses a system for object tracking (abstract). In addition, Sabirin discloses the system wherein a motion vector is assigned (page 3, 5 – 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Fujiwara, and a motion vector is assigned. The motivation for doing this is that the Application of Fujiwara can be broadened so that an alternative way for object tracking can be achieved.
Regarding claims 13 – 14, they are corresponding to claims 6 – 7, respectively, thus, they are interpreted and rejected for a same reason set forth for claims 6 – 7.
Regarding claim 20, it is corresponding to claim, thus, it is interpreted and rejected for a same reason set forth for claim 6.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QIAN YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7239. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8am-6pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Bee can be reached on 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 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.
/QIAN YANG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2677
Prosecution Insights