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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Remarks
This communication is in response to the Applicant’s Preliminary Amendment filed on 12/17/2024. Claims 1-27 were pending. Claims 4-10, 12-13, and 17-20 are Currently Amended. Claims 21-27 are Cancelled. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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.
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.
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 limitations are:
“a module configured to detect an object”, “a module configured to determine a location of the object”, “a module configured to request a mapping information”, “a module configured to receive a response from a view mapping database”, and “a module configured to share the response from the first camera to the second Camera” in claim 1.
“a module configured to divide coverage of each camera”, “a module configured to detect a second object”, “a module configured to determine a location of the second object “, “a module configured to determine a location of the second object”, and “a module configured to spatially calibrate the second region in the second camera's FOV to the first region” in claim 2.
“module configured to spatially calibrate” in claim 3.
“an object detection module and a re-identification module” in claim 9.
“an object detection module and a re-identification module” in claim 10.
“a module configured to change FOV of a camera of the multi-camera system” in claim 6.
“re-identification module configured to extract a cropped image” in claim 7.
“an object detection module and a re-identification module” in claim 9.
“an object detection module and a re-identification module” in claim 10.
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 § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4-14 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Si Young Jang et al (Applicant Admitted Prior Art. AAPA) as published as “Deploying Collaborative Machine Learning Systems in Edge with Multiple Cameras”, The 13th International Conference on Mobile Computing and Ubiquitous Network (ICMU2021), IPSJ, 17 November 2021 (2021-11-17), pages 1-6, XP034049809, DOI: 10.23919/ ICMU50196.2021.9638879 hereinafter “Jang”.
Regarding claim 1. (Original) An apparatus for a multi-camera system comprising at least a first camera and a second camera, wherein coverage of the first camera and coverage of the second camera is divided into a set of tiles (page 4, column 1, second paragraph; “Therefore, we leverage the tiling technique which slices a camera's FOV into 10x8 tiles similarly done in [18].”), the apparatus comprising:
- a module configured to detect an object in first region on the first camera's field of view, FOV (page 4, column 1, first paragraph; “During the offline phase, we collect video streams from multiple cameras and run an object detection model (e.g., Yolov3 [21]) on the video frame ...”), a module configured to determine a location of the object in terms of one or more tiles of the set of tiles in the first camera's view (page 4, column 1, first paragraph; “... which outputs the class, confidence score, and bounding box coordinate of each detected object seen.”), a module configured to request a mapping information identifying one or more tiles of the set of tiles in the second camera's FOV that corresponds to the one or more tiles of the set of tiles in the first camera's FOV (page 4, column 1, third paragraph; “The View Mapping DB is a key-value data store. Each value stored in the data store refers to a collection of tiles across different cameras, as shown in Figure 4.”);
- a module configured to receive a response from a view mapping database that is configured to identify the one or more tiles of the set of the tiles in the second camera's FOV that correspond to the one or more tiles of the set of tiles in the first camera's FOV, where the response further identifies one or more additional tiles contiguous with the identified one or more tiles of the set of tiles in the second camera's FOV (pages 4-5, column 1, Section C.; ‘Identifying Objects’);
- a module configured to share the response from the first camera to the second camera such that the second camera is enabled to find the object in the one or more of the tiles identified in the response (pages 5-6, Section V. Discussion and Outlook; first and second paragraphs; “...View Map service that identifies common objects in different camera fields of view without extracting the object features at the run time. ...”).
Regarding claim 4. (Currently Amended) The apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the tiles comprise rectangular spatial regions, which cumulatively cover a full coverage of at least some or all cameras such that a tile placement is constant and fixed in relation to the full coverage of each camera of the at least some or all cameras (page 4, section B. Evaluation1: View Mapping DB statistics (Offline phase)).
Regarding claim 5. (Currently Amended) The apparatus according to claim 1, wherein at least some or all cameras of the multi-camera system comprise at least one of: a software defined camera and a pan-tilt-zoom camera (page 4, section B. Evaluation1: View Mapping DB statistics (Offline phase)).
Regarding claim 6. (Currently Amended) The apparatus according to claim 1, comprising
a module configured to change FOV of a camera of the multi-camera system in response to changed camera configurations, which include at least one of pan, tilt, direction and zoom, and configured to maintaining the placement of the set of tiles in relation to the full coverage of the camera of the multi-camera system (page 4, section B. Evaluation1: View Mapping DB statistics (Offline phase)).
Regarding claims 7-8. (Currently Amended) Claims 7-8 have similar limitations as to those treated in the above rejections, and are met by the references as discussed above, and has been rejected for the same reasons of anticipations as used in the rejection to claims above.
Regarding claim 9. (Currently Amended) The apparatus according to claim 1, comprising an object detection module and a re-identification module (page 2, column 2, last two paragraph).
Regarding claim 10. (Currently Amended) The apparatus according to claim 1, comprising a system configured to serve one or more camera of the multi-camera system, wherein the system comprises the view mapping database, an object detection module and a re-identification module (page 2, column 2, last two paragraph).
Regarding claim 11. (Original) The apparatus according to the claim 10, wherein the system comprises an edge system (page 2, column 2, last two paragraph).
Regarding claim 12. (Currently Amended) The apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the system is one of: a local system for a camera or a global system for multiple cameras (page 2, column 2, last two paragraph).
Regarding claim 13. (Currently Amended) The apparatus according to claim 1, comprising at least one processor; and at least one memory including computer program code, the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the performance of the apparatus (page 2, column 2, last two paragraph).
Regarding claim 14. (Original) Method claim 14 is drawn to the method of using the corresponding apparatus claimed in claim 1. Therefore method claim 14 corresponds to apparatus claim 14 is rejected for same reasons of anticipation as used above.
Regarding claims 17-20. (Currently Amended) Method claims 17-20 are drawn to the method of using the corresponding apparatus claimed in claims 4-7. Therefore method claims 17-20 correspond to apparatus claims 4-7 are rejected for same reasons of anticipation as used above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3 and 15-16 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Oliver et al. (US 20200327802 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASMAMAW TARKO whose telephone number is (571)272-9205. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 9:00AM-5:00PM EST.
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, Chris Kelley can be reached at (571) 272-7331. 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.
/ASMAMAW G TARKO/ Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2482