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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/12/2024 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.
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 communication unit in claim 13; an object detection unit, a camera information detection unit, a behavior detection unit, and a connection relationship detection unit 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 § 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.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because neither the claim nor the specification exclude the storage medium from being non-statutory transitory forms of signal transmission, such as a propagating electrical or electromagnetic signal per se. See MPEP 2106.03.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al (US20210225013).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a method of managing an object detected by a plurality of image capturing apparatuses (para. [0050]), the method comprising:
mapping positions of the plurality of image capturing apparatuses to generate mapping information (fig. 9; para. [0166]);
obtaining a first image from each of the plurality of image capturing apparatuses (para. [0052], [0060], Each CCTV 30 captures a situation of the corresponding view range to generate a source video, and transmits the source video and related detailed information to the server 10);
detecting an object from the first image of each of the plurality of image capturing apparatuses (para. [0062], The server 10 detects at least one object of interest in the plurality of source videos received in the step S110 based on a preset condition of the object of interest; para. [0072]), based on a first trained model (para. [0073]); and
storing the mapping information (para. [0160], the system 1 is further configured to pre-store the location information of the CCTV 30 in the memory of the server 10 or a separate database) and connection information between detected objects (para. [0045], In the specification, a “tube” is a series of motion connected object sets, and refers to the concatenation of image parts representing objects or activities over the frames of a video; para. [0107], In an embodiment, the generated tube of the object of interest may be stored in the system before receiving the image query related to the target object for which the user wants to search in the source video; para. [0110]).
Regarding claim 3, Kim discloses a method wherein the storing of the connection information about the object comprises:
extracting a third image, which is a partial image (para. [0078]) comprising an object of a same type as a type of an object of interest (para. [0072]), from the first image obtained from each of the plurality of image capturing apparatuses (para. [0079]-[0080]);
detecting behavior information about the object of the third image (para. [0074]-[0075]), based on the third image and a third trained model (para. [0124], [0172]); and
determining the connection information about the object of the third image, based on the behavior information (para. [0145]-[0146], [0148]).
Regarding claim 5, Kim discloses a method wherein the connection information comprises at least one of identification information regarding the object (para. [0152]), image capturing apparatus information about an image capturing apparatus that detects the object among the plurality of image capturing apparatuses (para. [0052], [0152]), and direction information about a direction in which the object deviates from the image capturing apparatus (para. [0149]-[0150]).
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites similar subject matter as claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons as stated above.
Regarding claim 9, the claim recites similar subject matter as claim 3 and is rejected for the same reasons as stated above.
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites similar subject matter as claim 5 and is rejected for the same reasons as stated above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 2, 8, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (US20210225013) in view of Taylor (US20120249802) and Kumar et al (US20170161911).
Regarding claim 2, Kim fails to teach a method wherein the generating of the mapping information comprises:
identifying, from the first image of each of the plurality of image capturing apparatuses, a second image comprising another image capturing apparatus;
estimating a distance between the plurality of image capturing apparatuses, based on the second image, size information about the plurality of image capturing apparatuses, and a second trained model; and
correcting the map based on a type of the detected object, an object detection time, and the mapping information to estimate the map.
Taylor teaches identifying, from the first image of each of the plurality of image capturing apparatuses, a second image comprising another image capturing apparatus (para. [0040], The cameras detect other nodes in their field of view by analyzing image sequences to detect blinking pixels and, hence, are able to determine the relative bearing to other visible nodes. By knowing the location of the light source of other visible cameras, each viewing camera can determine the location of other cameras in the image plane. In some embodiments, the viewing camera can take into account the geometry and orientation of camera being observed (which may be obtained by peer-to-peer wireless communication between cameras) and determine an offset in the image plane to determine the location of the lens or optical sensor of the observed camera; claim 3);
estimating a distance between the plurality of image capturing apparatuses, based on the second image and size information about the plurality of image capturing apparatuses (para. [0042], For example, using the location of each blinking light source and the observed size and shape of the observed camera B, the observing camera A can determine the distance Vab to the observed camera B); and
correcting a map based on a type of the detected object, an object detection time, and mapping information to estimate the map (para. [0042], For example, using the location of each blinking light source and the observed size and shape of the observed camera B, the observing camera A can determine the distance Vab to the observed camera B; para. [0043], The resulting model of orientation and location of nearby cameras can be used to create a 3D model of the location of smart cameras).
Therefore taking the combined teachings of Kim and Taylor as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the steps of Taylor into the method of Kim. The motivation to combine Kim and Taylor would be to increase accuracy (para. [0040] of Taylor).
The modified method of Kim fails to teach estimating a distance between the plurality of image capturing apparatuses based on the second trained model. However Kumar teaches estimating a distance between a plurality of objects (para. [0024]) based on a second trained model (para. [0009], [0019]).
Therefore taking the combined teachings of modified Kim and Kumar as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the steps of Kumar into the method of modified Kim. The motivation to combine modified Kim and Kumar would be to produce smooth position and velocity estimates even if the sequence of boxes is noisy (para. [0020] of Kumar).
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites similar subject matter as claim 2 and is rejected for the same reasons as stated above.
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites similar subject matter as claims 1-3 and is rejected for the same reasons as stated above.
Claim(s) 4 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (US20210225013) in view of Jeon et al (US20200175697).
Regarding claim 4, Kim teaches a method wherein the determining of the connection information comprises determining the connection information based on the type of the object (para. [0045]).
Kim fails to teach wherein the determining of the connection information comprises determining the connection information based on a similarity of the behavior information, the object detection time, and the mapping information.
However Jeon teaches determining connection information (para. [0012], data association unit) based on a similarity of the behavior information (para. [0046], he re-identification process may be performed by comparing color appearance in consideration of path estimation, motion estimation, tracklet, and the like), the object detection time (para. [0045]), and the mapping information (para. [0038], multi-camera topology).
Therefore taking the combined teachings of Kim and Jeon as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the steps of Jeon into the method of Kim. The motivation to combine Kim and Jeon would be to perform data communication without overlap (para. [0005] of Jeon).
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites similar subject matter as claim 4 and is rejected for the same reasons as stated above.
Claim(s) 6 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (US20210225013) in view of Jannard et al (US9497380).
Regarding claim 6, Kim fails to teach a method further comprising normalizing the first image based on performance information of each of the plurality of image capturing apparatuses.
However Jannard teaches normalizing a first image (col. 19 lines 42-48) based on performance information (col. 19 lines 4-12 and lines 55-60) of each of a plurality of image capturing apparatuses (abstract, plurality of imaging elements).
Therefore taking the combined teachings of Kim and Jannard as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the steps of Jannard into the method of Kim. The motivation to combine Kim and Jannard would be to allow personalization of videos (col. 2 lines 10-17 of Jannard).
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites similar subject matter as claim 6 and is rejected for the same reasons as stated above.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (US20210225013) in view of Luo (US20210357691).
Regarding claim 13, Kim teaches an image capturing apparatus comprising:
a communication unit configured to transmit and receive data to and from an image processing apparatus (para. [0059]-[0060], Each CCTV 30 captures a situation of the corresponding view range to generate a source video, and transmits the source video and related detailed information to the server 10; claim 18, the server provides the requested image); and
a processor (para. [0178]) configured to detect an object from a first image (para. [0062], The server 10 detects at least one object of interest in the plurality of source videos received in the step S110 based on a preset condition of the object of interest; para. [0072]) based on a first trained model (para. [0073]) to detect object information (para. [0072]), detect behavior information for each object (para. [0074]-[0075]), and receiving connection information, determined based on the object information and the behavior information (para. [0045], In the specification, a “tube” is a series of motion connected object sets, and refers to the concatenation of image parts representing objects or activities over the frames of a video; para. [0107], In an embodiment, the generated tube of the object of interest may be stored in the system before receiving the image query related to the target object for which the user wants to search in the source video; para. [0110]).
Kim fails to teach transmitting the object information and the behavior information to the image processing apparatus, and receiving connection information from the image processing apparatus.
However Luo teaches transmitting object information and behavior information to an image processing apparatus (para. [0100], the DLA 314 is configured to perform one or more deep learning tasks, such as to detect, recognize, and/or recognize faces, objects, creatures, types of motion, types of behavior; para. [0125], the camera is configured to separately generate image/video data and deep learning evaluation results, and output both (e.g., saved and/or transmitted, or submitted to another module or process for further processing)), and receiving connection information from the image processing apparatus (para. [0125], it would be obvious to receive the further processed results).
Therefore taking the combined teachings of Kim and Luo as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the features of Luo into the apparatus of Kim. The motivation to combine Kim and Luo would be to enhance operation of the analytics and reduce processing overhead (para. [0081] of Luo).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (US20210225013) and Luo (US20210357691) in view of Taylor (US20120249802) and Kumar et al (US20170161911).
Regarding claim 14, the modified apparatus of Kim fails to teach an image capturing apparatus wherein the processor is further configured to estimate, from a second image comprising another image capturing apparatus in the first image, a distance between the image capturing apparatus and the other image capturing apparatus based on a second trained model and transmit the distance to the image processing apparatus.
However Taylor teaches an image capturing apparatus (fig. 4B) wherein a processor (222 in fig. 4B) is further configured to estimate, from a second image comprising another image capturing apparatus in the first image (para. [0040], The cameras detect other nodes in their field of view by analyzing image sequences to detect blinking pixels and, hence, are able to determine the relative bearing to other visible nodes. By knowing the location of the light source of other visible cameras, each viewing camera can determine the location of other cameras in the image plane. In some embodiments, the viewing camera can take into account the geometry and orientation of camera being observed (which may be obtained by peer-to-peer wireless communication between cameras) and determine an offset in the image plane to determine the location of the lens or optical sensor of the observed camera; claim 3), a distance between the image capturing apparatus and the other image capturing apparatus (para. [0042], For example, using the location of each blinking light source and the observed size and shape of the observed camera B, the observing camera A can determine the distance Vab to the observed camera B) and transmit the distance to an image processing apparatus (para. [0015], [0075]).
Therefore taking the combined teachings of modified Kim and Taylor as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the features of Taylor into the apparatus of modified Kim. The motivation to combine modified Kim and Taylor would be to increase accuracy (para. [0040] of Taylor).
Kumar teaches estimating a distance between a plurality of objects (para. [0024]) based on a second trained model (para. [0009], [0019]).
Therefore taking the combined teachings of modified Kim and Kumar as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the features of Kumar into the apparatus of modified Kim. The motivation to combine modified Kim and Kumar would be to produce smooth position and velocity estimates even if the sequence of boxes is noisy (para. [0020] of Kumar).
Related Art
Li et al (US20210256245) – see figs. 3A and 6; para. [0051]
Chen (US20190095754) – sees 1A-2C; para. [0024]
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEON VIET Q NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1185. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 11AM-7PM.
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, Gregory Morse can be reached at 571-272-3838. 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.
/LEON VIET Q NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2663
Prosecution Insights