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 .
Status of claims: claims 1-15 are pending below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/7/2024 and 4/9/2025 was filed and considered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 limitation(s) is/are: “a first identification unit configured to” in claim 1, “a second identification unit configured to” in claim 1, “a control unit configured to” in claim 1, “a first identification unit configured to” in claim 14, “a second identification unit configured to” in claim 14, “a control unit configured to” in claim 14, “a first identification unit configured to” in claim 15, “a second identification unit configured to” in claim 15, “a control unit configured to” in claim 15.
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 § 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.
Claims 1-5 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PILLMANN et al (US 2023/0237697) in view of LI et al (US 2020/0057160).
Claim 1, similarly claims 13-15:
PILLMANN et al (US 2023/0237697) teaches the following subject matter:
An image processing apparatus comprising:
one or more processors (0132-0137 detail processor); and
one or more memories storing executable instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the image processing apparatus to function as (0071 detail memory):
a first identification unit configured to identify an object on the basis of a predicted position of the object based on a first frame group in a first frame period, and a position of the object in a target frame (0003 and 0016 detail predicting a location of a tracked object relative to a moving vehicle, the method comprising: in a first image at a first time, determining a first set of actual locations for a first set of objects);
a second identification unit configured to identify an object on the basis of a predicted position of the object based on a second frame group in a second frame period, and a position of the object in the target frame (0003 and 0016 detail second image at a second time, determining a second set of actual locations for a second set of objects relative to the moving vehicle, wherein the second set of objects includes one or more of the same objects); and
a control unit configured to, in a case where a plurality of objects are detected in the target frame (0007 detail tracking of objects in between frames; 0039 and 0079 teaches tracking same object in present image), execute tracking of a tracking target object on the basis of distances between the plurality of objects (0003 and 0016; 0003 detail determine distance and offsets between tracked objects; 0064), and at least one identification result out of a first identification result of the object based on a detected position of the object and the predicted position of the object based on the first frame group, and a second identification result of the object based on the detected position and the predicted position of the object based on the second frame group (0003 and 0016 detail prediction system of object in first and second involving parameters such as images, time, location, distance, offsets, test shifts).
PILLMANN et al teaches all the subject matter above, but not the following:
wherein the second frame period is longer than the first frame period.
LI et al (US 2020/0057160) teaches: wherein the second frame period is longer than the first frame period (0037-0038 teaches object tracker of target object tracked with predetermined time and longer predetermined time of one second for this group of points).
PILLMANN et al and LI et al are in the field of image analysis, especially object tracking and predicting their location such that the combine outcomes is predicted.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify PILLMANN et al by LI et al regarding tracking of object and it prediction such would modifies the model for the target object by adjusting the motion estimation to reduce or remove a physical distortion of the model for the target object as disclosed by LI et al in 0058.
Regarding claim 13, method is taught by PILLMANN et al in 0003-0016 and figures 5-6 with workflow are view as method.
Regarding claim 14, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium is taught by PILLMANN et al in paragraph 0136
Regarding claim 15, PILLMANN et al teaches image capturing unit and camera in0044-0046, processor(s) and control unit and apparatus in 0132-0134, memories in 0071 and non-transitory in 0136.
Claim 2:
PILLMANN et al teach:
The apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the first identification unit adds, to the object in the target frame, identification information of the object at a predicted position closest to the position of the object in the target frame out of predicted positions of the object based on the first frame group (0013 detail further parameter of the tracked object such as a size, a shape, a category, an orientation, or a type).
Claim 3:
PILLMANN et al teach:
The apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the second identification unit adds, to the object in the target frame, identification information of the object at a predicted position closest to the position of the object in the target frame out of predicted positions of the object based on the second frame group (above teaches tracking of the first and second object in first the second images, where 0079 further detail the tracking and predicting object outside of field of view at the time of image collection).
Claim 4:
PILLMANN et al teach:
The apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the first identification unit and the second identification unit identify the object on the basis of a detected area and predicted area of the object (0005-0006 detail area of search such as actual location, intermediate location and around the actual location).
Claim 5:
PILLMANN et al teach:
The apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the first identification unit and the second identification unit identify the object on the basis of a detected orientation and predicted orientation of the object (0013 detail further parameter of the tracked object such as a size, a shape, a category, an orientation).
Claim 12:
The apparatus according to claim 1, wherein in a case where identification information of a tracking target object is received from an external apparatus, the control unit selects an object corresponding to the identification information as a tracking target object (figure 9 and 0130-0131 detail remote communication/external for object detection, identification, where identification require information).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is 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.
Claim 7 is 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
Claim 8, and dependent claims 9-11, 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.
Kim et al (US 9,684,830) teaches Automatic Target Selection For Multi-target Object Tracking - object selection from multiple tracked objects for image capture by an imaging device comprising: receiving multiple image frames for object detection, object tracking, and image capture preparation; detecting at least a first object and a second object in at least a first image frame of the multiple image frames; tracking at least the first detected object and the second detected object across two or more second image frames of the multiple image frames; generating a first object trajectory corresponding to the first tracked object and a second object trajectory corresponding to the second tracked object; generating a first object selection metric associated with the first object trajectory and a second object selection metric associated with the second object trajectory (claim 1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TSUNG-YIN TSAI whose telephone number is (571)270-1671. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-4pm.
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, Bhavesh Mehta can be reached at (571) 272-7453. 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.
/TSUNG YIN TSAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2656
Prosecution Insights