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 title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
Claims 1, 12, 20 are 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for failing to sufficiently define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. Claim describes the response to the target object being located outside the blind area of the camera at both of the n historical moments and the target moment; however, claim 1 fails to further define a response to the target object being located within the blind area of the camera at at least one of: the n historical moments and the target moment. Thus it would have been unclear to one of the ordinary skill in the art what the metes and bounds of the claimed invention are.
Claims 12, 20 are directed to similar subject matter as claim 1 and are thus similarly rejected.
However, claim 2, which is dependent on claim 1, further recites the response to the target object being located in the blind area of the camera at least at one of the n historical moments and the target moment. Thus claim 2 (and its dependent claims: claims 3-11) is not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Similar reasoning applies to claims 13-19.
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 an abstract idea without recitation of significantly more or integration of the judicial exception into a practical application. All claims have been examined individually on their own merits for the purposes of determining eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101. See MPEP 2106, 2106.04, and 2106.05.
Claim 1 recites a position determining method, comprising:
determining whether a target object is located in a blind area of a camera at n historical moments of a historical time queue and a target moment;
wherein the historical time queue is configured to store historical position information of the target object at latest n historical moments prior to the target moment, where n is a preset positive integer not less than 2; and
in response to the target object being located outside the blind area of the camera at both of the n historical moments and the target moment, determining position information of the target object acquired by the camera at the target moment as the position information of the target object at the target moment.
Step 1: Claim 1 recites a method.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 1 recites a judicial exception of the abstract idea grouping. Limitations (a), (c) recite determining whether an object is visible to a camera in a specified number of previous frames as well as a target frame and in response to determining that this is the case, determining the position of the target. This can be performed in the human mind by viewing a series of images and identifying whether an object is present and visible (i.e. outside of a blind area of a camera) throughout the series of images, as well as identifying position information of the object. Thus limitations (a), (c) constitute mental process steps, and thus claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 1 does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements of claim 1 include limitation (b), which recites storing position information of the target object in several image frames. These do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the limitation merely recites storing data, specifically object position information within an image, which is a broadly described and generic function of an image-processing software or computer device. Thus limitation (b) fails to meaningfully tie the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B: Claim 1 does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As stated above, the additional elements of claim 1 include limitation (b), which recites storing position information of the target object in several image frames. These do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the limitation merely recites storing data, specifically object position information within an image, which is a broadly described and generic function of an image-processing software or computer device. Thus limitation (b) fails to add significantly more than the abstract idea.
Thus, claim 1 is directed to the judicial exception.
Independent claims:
Claim 12 recites an electronic device, comprising at least one memory and at least one processor, wherein the at least one memory is configured to store program codes, and the at least one processor is configured to call the program codes stored in the at least one memory to execute a position determining method, wherein the position determining method comprises essentially the method according to claim 1. Thus claim 12 recites an abstract idea similarly to claim 1 as stated above. The additional elements of claim 12 amount merely to generic computer components which fail to either meaningfully tie the abstract idea into a practical application or to add significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus claim 12 is directed to the judicial exception.
Claim 20 recites a computer-readable storage medium for storing program codes, wherein the program codes, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform a position determining method, wherein the position determining method comprises essentially the method according to claim 1. Thus claim 20 recites an abstract idea similarly to claim 1 as stated above. The additional elements of claim 20 amount merely to generic computer components which fail to either meaningfully tie the abstract idea into a practical application or to add significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus claim 20 is directed to the judicial exception.
Dependent claims: Claims 2-11, 13-19 are dependent on claim 1 or claim 12 and therefore similarly recite the judicial exception according to the analysis applied above.
Claims 2-5, 13-16 recite additional limitations which are merely additional steps of a mental process and are thus included in the abstract idea and fail to meaningfully tie the judicial exception to a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, the claims are directed to the judicial exception.
Claims 6-11, 17-19 recite additional limitations which are merely generic computer components of steps of a mathematical calculation process and are thus included in the abstract idea and fail to meaningfully tie the judicial exception to a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, the claims are directed to the judicial exception.
Claim 20 is additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being directed to a signal per se. A "computer-readable storage medium" is defined in the specification to include "a computer-readable signal medium or a computer-readable storage medium or any combination of the two…In the present disclosure, a computer-readable signal medium may include a data signal propagated in baseband or as part of a carrier wave, in which computer-readable program codes are carried. This propagated data signal can take many forms, including but not limited to electromagnetic signals, optical signals or any suitable combination of the above." ( Specification Paragraph [0141]). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media. See MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. The claims, as defined in the specification, cover both non-statutory subject matter and statutory subject matter. A claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments by adding the limitation "non-transitory" to the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 12, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tang (US 20210407103 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Tang discloses a position determining method ([0069] Fig. 3 is a flowchart of an object tracking method), comprising:
determining whether a target object is located in a blind area of a camera at n historical moments of a historical time queue and a target moment (Fig. 2, 3; [0076] 303: the server decodes the video stream to obtain a plurality of image frames, and obtains motion vectors of each of the plurality of image frames; [0063] as shown in Fig. 2, the server 103 performs object detection and key point detection on the frames for detection and performs a tracking operation on the frames for tracking; [0085] 305: the server performs object detection on the current image frame, to obtain a first position of the target object in the current image frame (i.e. detecting the object in all of the frames necessarily determines whether the object is visible or not visible (inside or outside of the blind area));
wherein the historical time queue is configured to store historical position information of the target object at latest n historical moments prior to the target moment, where n is a preset positive integer not less than 2 ([0182] the electronic device may be represented by a server, which may include one or more memories 1402; [0183] the memory 1402 stores at least one instruction to implement the following steps: [0185] obtain position information of a target object in the current image frame, [0186] predicting position information of a target object in the current image frame based on motion vectors of the previous image frame and position of the target object in the previous image frame; see also Fig. 2, [0063]); and
in response to the target object being located outside the blind area of the camera at both of the n historical moments and the target moment, determining position information of the target object acquired by the camera at the target moment as the position information of the target object at the target moment (Fig. 3, [0081] 304: for a to-be-processed current image frame, the server determines whether the current image frame is a frame for detection or a frame for tracking and performs the following step 305 in response to that the current image frame is a frame for detection, [0085] 305: the server performs object detection on the current image frame, to obtain a first position of the target object in the current image frame).
Regarding claim 12, Tang discloses everything claimed as applied above (see rejection of claim 1), including further disclosing an electronic device, comprising at least one memory and at least one processor, wherein the at least one memory is configured to store program codes, and the at least one processor is configured to call the program codes stored in the at least one memory to execute a position determining method ([0011] an electronic device is provided, including a processor and a memory, the memory storing at least one instruction, the at least one instruction being loaded and executed by the processor to implement…obtaining the position information of the target object).
Regarding claim 20, Tang discloses everything claimed as applied above (see rejection of claim 1), including further disclosing a computer-readable storage medium for storing program codes, wherein the program codes, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform a position determining method ([0010] a non-transitory storage medium is provided, storing at least one instruction, the at least one instruction being loaded and executed by a processor to implement…obtaining the position information of the target object).
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.
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) 2, 4, 13, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang (US 20210407103 A1) in view of Tokmakov (US 20230237807 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Tang discloses the method according to claim 1 as applied above. Tang further discloses acquiring posture change information of the target object at the target moment ([0097] 307: the server predicts a third position of the target object in the current image frame in a next image frame based on an obtained key point detection result and motion vectors of the current image frame; [0076] 303: the server decodes the video stream to obtain a plurality of image frames, and obtains motion vectors of each of the plurality of image frames).
Tang fails to disclose in response to the target object being located in the blind area of the camera at least at one of the n historical moments and the target moment, determining the position information of the target object at the target moment according to the historical time queue and the posture change information.
Tokmakov, in a related system from the same field of endeavor of tracking objects including occluded objects across image frames (Abstract), discloses, in response to the target object being located in the blind area of the camera at least at one of the n historical moments and the target moment, determining the position information of the target object at the target moment according to the historical time queue and the posture change information (Figs. 3-4; [0036]-[0037] a trained object tracking model 300 may estimate a location and a trajectory of the target object 202 at each moment in time during the occlusion; [0040] the object tracking model 300 associates the target object 202 detected in a current frame with one of the previously established trajectories for the detected object).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Tokmakov with Tang wherein, in response to the target object being located in the blind area of the camera at least at one of the n historical moments and the target moment, determining the position information of the target object at the target moment according to the historical time queue and the posture change information, as disclosed by Tokmakov, as part of a position determining method, as disclosed by Tang, for the purpose of improving object tracking functionality when an object is not visible in some frames of a series of frames (see Tokmakov: [0066]).
Regarding claim 4, Tang in view of Tokmakov discloses the method according to claim 2 as applied above. Tang fails to disclose wherein determining the position information of the target object at the target moment according to the historical time queue and the posture change information comprises: determining a relative position of the target object at the target moment relative to a previous historical moment according to the historical time queue and the posture change information, and determining the relative position as the position information of the target object at the target moment; or determining the relative position of the target object at the target moment relative to the previous historical moment according to the historical time queue and the posture change information, and determining the position information of the target object at the target moment according to the relative position and historical position information of the target object at the previous historical moment.
Tokmakov, in a related system from the same field of endeavor of tracking objects including occluded objects across image frames (Abstract), discloses wherein determining the position information of the target object at the target moment according to the historical time queue and the posture change information comprises: determining a relative position of the target object at the target moment relative to a previous historical moment according to the historical time queue and the posture change information, and determining the relative position as the position information of the target object at the target moment ([0036] determines a first end point before the occlusion and a second point after the occlusion and generates a spatiotemporal probabilistic graph based on the current frame and subsequent frames of the sequence of frames to estimate a location of the target object 202 at each moment in time after the target object 202 is occluded by the first vehicle 140); or,
determining the relative position of the target object at the target moment relative to the previous historical moment according to the historical time queue and the posture change information, and determining the position information of the target object at the target moment according to the relative position and historical position information of the target object at the previous historical moment ([0037] a trained object tracking model 300 may estimate a location and a trajectory of the target object 202 at each moment in time during the occlusion; [0040] the object tracking model 300 associates the target object 202 detected in a current frame with one of the previously established trajectories for the detected object).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Tokmakov with Tang including determining a relative position of the target object at the target moment relative to a previous historical moment according to the historical time queue and the posture change information, and determining the relative position as the position information of the target object at the target moment, or determining the relative position of the target object at the target moment relative to the previous historical moment according to the historical time queue and the posture change information, and determining the position information of the target object at the target moment according to the relative position and historical position information of the target object at the previous historical moment, as disclosed by Tokmakov, as part of a position determining method, as disclosed by Tang, for the purpose of improving object tracking functionality when an object is not visible in some frames of a series of frames (see Tokmakov: [0066]).
Regarding claim 13, Tang discloses the electronic device according to claim 12 as applied above. Tang in view of Tokmakov discloses everything claimed as applied above (see rejection of claim 2).
Regarding claim 15, Tang discloses the electronic device according to claim 13 as applied above. Tang in view of Tokmakov discloses everything claimed as applied above (see rejection of claim 4).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 5-11, 14, 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as stated above, but would be allowable if rewritten to overcome these rejections and in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 3, Tang in view of Tokmakov discloses the method according to claim 2 as applied above. Tang fails to disclose wherein after determining that the target object is located in the blind area of the camera at least at one of the n historical moments and the target moment, and prior to determining the position information of the target object at the target moment according to the historical time queue and the posture change information, the method further comprises: in response to the target object entering the blind area of the camera for a first time and a number of the historical position information not reaching n, ending the method.
Similar reasoning applies to claim 14 which is directed to similar subject matter as claim 3.
Regarding claim 5, Tang in view of Tokmakov discloses the method according to claim 2 as applied above. Tang fails to disclose wherein in response to determining that the target object is located in the blind area of the camera at least at one of the n historical moments and the target moment, determining the position information of the target object at the target moment according to the historical time queue and the posture change information by using a position estimation model; and in response to determining that the target object is located outside the blind area of the camera at both of the n historical moments and the target moment, maintaining or setting the position estimation model in a non-working state.
Similar reasoning applies to claim 16 which is directed to similar subject matter as claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, Tang in view of Tokmakov discloses the method according to claim 2 as applied above. Tang fails to disclose wherein determining the position information of the target object at the target moment according to the historical time queue and the posture change information comprises: inputting n pieces of historical position information in the historical time queue and the posture change information into a position estimation model to obtain an initial predicted position; performing at least one iteration on the initial predicted position; determining a probability that a phase position predicted in each iteration phase by the position estimation model falls into each error plane, wherein a distribution of each error plane has a corresponding error expectation; and correcting the initial predicted position according to the probability that the phase position predicted in each iteration phase falls into each error plane and the error expectation corresponding to the error plane, to obtain a corrected predicted position; and determining the corrected predicted position as the position information of the target object at the target moment.
Claims 7-11 are dependent on claim 6 and thus similar reasoning applied. Similar reasoning also applies to claim 17 and its dependent claims 18-19 which are directed to similar subject matter as claims 6-7, 11.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Katz (US 20160364013 A1) discloses tracking the position of a VR controller including a headset camera and fixed cameras with overlapping FOVs to determine the pose of the controller based on features.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAROLINE DEPALMA whose telephone number is (571)270-0769. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 9:00am-4pm Eastern Time.
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, Emily Terrell can be reached at (571) 270-3717. 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.
/CAROLINE E. DEPALMA/Examiner, Art Unit 2675
/SJ Park/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2675
Prosecution Insights