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 .
DETAILED ACTION
INFORMATION DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/19/2024 & 09/16/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
FOREIGN PRIORITY
A claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C § 119 (a) - (d), which was contained in the Declaration and Power of Attorney filed on 11/19/2024 has been acknowledged. Acknowledgement of claimed foreign priority and receipt of priority documents is reflected in form PTO-326 Office Action Summary.
DOUBLE PATENTING
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 12,211,226
As to claims 1, 8 & 15, instant application discloses a processor; and a non-transitory storage medium coupled to the processor and configured to store a plurality of instructions, which cause the processor to: detect a target object from a monitoring image captured by a camera of the electronic device; determine a designated region, a target region, and a combined region from the monitoring image, wherein the combined region is generated by combining the designated region and the target region, and an area where the target object is located in the monitoring image is determined to be the target region; calculate a first area of the designated region, a second area of the target region, and a third area of the combined region; calculating a value of IOU based on the first area, the second area and the third area to obtain the IOU between the designated region and the target region; and determine an intrusion warning in a monitoring region in the monitoring image according to a comparison result between the value of IOU and a preset threshold.
(U.S. Patent 12,211,226- Claims 1,8 & 15)
As to claims 2-7, 9-14 & 16-20, these claims are rejected due to their dependence on claims 1, 8 & 15 and are rejected for the same reasons.
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 as ineligible under subject eligibility test. In the Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes (Federal Register, Vol. 79, No. 241, dated Tuesday, December 16, 2014, page 74621), The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional device elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea.
Claims 1, 8 & 15
Step 1
This step inquires “is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?” Yes, claims 1, 8 & 15 are either:
Methods (e.g. Process)
Device (e.g. Machine)
Non -Transitory Storage Medium (e.g. Machine)
Step 2A - Prong 1
This step inquires “does the claim recite an abstract idea, law or natural phenomenon”. This claim appears to directed to an abstract idea.
Abstract ideas fall under three categories:
(1) Mathematical Concepts;
(2) Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity;
(3) Mental Processes
The limitation of “calculating intersection over union (IOU) between a target region and a designated region in an image, the method comprising: detecting a target object from a monitoring image captured by a camera of the electronic device； determining a designated region, a target region, and a combined region from the monitoring image, and the combined region being generated by combining the designated region and the target region, and an area where the target object is located in the monitoring image is determined to be the target region; calculating a first area of the designated region, a second area of the target region, and a third area of the combined region; calculating a value of IOU based on the first area, the second area and the third area to obtain the IOU between the designated region and the target region; and determining an intrusion warning in a monitoring region in the monitoring image according to a comparison result between the value of IOU and a preset threshold.”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the mathematical concepts (e.g. mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas, equations on calculations. That is, other than reciting “a processor; and a non-transitory storage medium coupled to the processor” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “a processor; and a non-transitory storage medium coupled to the processor” language, “detecting, determining, calculating” in the context of this claim encompasses covers performance of the mathematical concepts (e.g. mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas, equations on calculations.
STEP 2A – PRONG 1 - CONCLUSION
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the mathematical concepts (e.g. mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas, equations on calculations but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas.
Step 2A - Prong 2
This step inquires “does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites two additional element – using a “a processor; and a non-transitory storage medium coupled to the processor” to perform “detecting, determining, calculating” steps. The “a processor; and a non-transitory storage medium coupled to the processor” are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor) “detect a target object from a monitoring image captured by a camera of the electronic device; determine a designated region, a target region, and a combined region from the monitoring image, wherein the combined region is generated by combining the designated region and the target region, and an area where the target object is located in the monitoring image is determined to be the target region; calculate a first area of the designated region, a second area of the target region, and a third area of the combined region; calculating a value of IOU based on the first area, the second area and the third area to obtain the IOU between the designated region and the target region; and determine an intrusion warning in a monitoring region in the monitoring image according to a comparison result between the value of IOU and a preset threshold.” such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
STEP 2A – PRONG 2 - CONCLUSION
Accordingly, as the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The critical inquiry here is does the claim recite additional elements that amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception? The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a “a processor; and a non-transitory storage medium coupled to the processor” to perform “detecting, determining, calculating” steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims
As to claims 2, 9 & 16, this claim is directed to generic computer components (“control unit”), mental process (“selecting vertex coordinates, defining a region from those coordinates, determining a contour, and calculating the associated area”) and insignificant extra-solution activity (“the first image and contour information are intermediate representations generated solely to provide inputs to the claimed area/IOU calculations.”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claims 3, 10 & 17, this claim is directed to insignificant extra-solution activity (“binarizing the image/region, performing edge detection, performing morphological processing, and obtaining the contour region are preparatory image processing operations performed to obtain the contour information subsequently used in the abstract area analysis”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claims 4, 11 & 18, this claim is directed to generic computer components (“control unit”), mental process (“obtaining identifying the vertex coordinates of the target region; identifying the corresponding target region; identifying contour information; and evaluating the contour information to determine the area”) and insignificant extra-solution activity (“generating the second image, generating the target region within that image, processing the image/region within that image and extracting contour information are preparatory steps that obtain information used in the subsequent mathematical determination”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claims 5, 12 & 19, this claim is directed to mental process (“identifying the maximum contour region; identifying/extracting the corresponding contour information; and evaluating that information as representing the combined region”) and insignificant extra-solution activity (“combining the region representations to obtain the third image, processing that image, and extracting the maximum contour and contour information are preparatory operations used to obtain the third area information necessary for the later calculation.”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claims 6, 13 & 20, this claim is directed to mental process (“detecting/identifying the target object in the monitoring image; determining the spatial extent of the target object; and determining that the area enclosed by the candidate frame represents the target region.”) and insignificant extra-solution activity (“inputting the monitoring image into the model and using the model to obtain the target region information can be characterized as pre-solution data identification/acquisition, because the resulting target region supplies an input to the subsequent region area an ”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claims 7 & 14, this claim is directed to generic computer components (“control unit”), mental process (“comparing the calculated IOU value with the predetermined threshold and determining whether the threshold condition has been satisfied”) and insignificant extra-solution activity (“Triggering the intrusion warning”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
CLAIM REJECTIONS - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 5, 12 & 19 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 5, 12 & 19 are recites the limitation “combining the first target region and the second target region”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this case, “second target region” is not introduced in claim 1 or 2.
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 of this title, 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, 7-8 & 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Xu et al. (U.S. Publication 2021/0327086) in view of Du et al. (U.S. Publication 2018/0181881)
As to claims 1, 8 & 15, Xu discloses a processor; and a non-transitory storage medium coupled to the processor and configured to store a plurality of instructions, which cause the processor to: detect a target object from a monitoring image captured by a camera of the electronic device ([0036, 0039-0040] discloses camera streaming wherein pedestrian detection is performed on each frame in a frame to frame basis.); determine a designated region ([0040, 0092]),
Xu is silent to calculating intersection over union (IOU) between a target region and a designated region in an image. A combined region from the monitoring image, wherein the combined region is generated by combining the designated region and the target region, calculating a first area of the designated region, a second area of the target region, and a third area of the combined region, calculating a value of IOU based on the first area, the second area and the third area to obtain the IOU between the designated region and target region, according to a comparison result between the value of IOU and a preset threshold.
calculating a value of IOU based on the first area, the second area and the third area to obtain the IOU between the designated region and the target region.
However, Du discloses calculating intersection over union (IOU) between a target region and a designated region in an image ([0005-0006, 0050] discloses bounding boxes 110 and a ground truth bounding box 120. See Area of overlap of bounding boxes 110 and ground truth box 120. See Union of the area of detection box 110 and ground truth box 120. See the intersection of both boxes over their union area.), a combined region from the monitoring image, wherein the combined region is generated by combining the designated region and the target region ([0006] discloses a union of the area of detection box 110 and ground truth box 120), calculating a first area of the designated region, a second area of the target region, and a third area of the combined region ([0005-0006] discloses detection box 110 covers a first area and 120 covers a second area. See union of the area of detection box 100 and 120. ), calculating a value of IOU based on the first area, the second area and the third area to obtain the IOU between the designated region and target region ([0006 & 0050]), according to a comparison result between the value of IOU and a preset threshold ([0005-0006 & 0050]), calculating a value of IOU based on the first area, the second area and the third area to obtain the IOU between the designated region and the target region ([0005-0006 & 0050]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Xu’s disclosure to include the above limitations in order to quantify the spatial overlap between the detected target region and the preset region using the respective region areas and their combined/union area, thereby providing a normalized overlap value for comparison with Xu’s intrusion threshold.
As to claims 7 & 14, Xu in view of Du discloses everything as disclosed in claims 1 & 15 respectively. In addition, Xu discloses wherein determining the intrusion warning in the monitoring region in the monitoring image according to the comparison result between the value of IOU and a preset threshold comprises: determining whether the value of IOU is greater than the preset threshold; and in response that the value of IOU is greater than the preset threshold, triggering the intrusion warning in the monitoring region. (Xu - [0096-0100], Du [0006, 0050])
Claims 2, 4-5, 9, 11-12, 16 & 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Xu et al. (U.S. Publication 2021/0327086) in view of Du et al. (U.S. Publication 2018/0181881)
as applied in claims 1, 8 & 15 above further in view of Hart et al. (U.S. Publication 2018/0092530)
As to claims 2, 9 & 16, Xu in view of Du discloses everything as disclosed in claims 1, 8 & 15 respectively but is silent to wherein calculating the first area of the designated region comprises: generating a first image having a same size as the monitoring image; obtaining first vertex coordinates of the designated region in the monitoring image; generating a first target region in the first image according to the first vertex coordinates; processing the first target region and obtaining a first contour region; extracting first contour information of the first contour region; and calculating the first area according to the first contour information.
However, Hart discloses wherein calculating the first area of the designated region comprises: generating a first image having a same size as the monitoring image; obtaining first vertex coordinates of the designated region in the monitoring image; generating a first target region in the first image according to the first vertex coordinates; processing the first target region and obtaining a first contour region; extracting first contour information of the first contour region; and calculating the first area according to the first contour information. (Hart discloses obtaining the originally sized image at [0089], applying a mask to the image to [0102] and discloses region of interest identification mask is configured to be in the same size as images 330 captured and displayed at [0104]. Hart discloses that the application mask results in a masked image containing contours as enclosed, contiguous area. See [0103]. Hart discloses once the image is masked, the image processing device “obtains contours 350 in the masked image 332” at [0114], and then calculates the area of each contour, including according to the number of pixels within the contour, at [0115].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Xu in view of Du’s disclosure to include the above limitations in order to generate an image representation corresponding to the designated region, obtain contour information defining the designated region, and calculate the area of the designated region from the resulting contour information.
As to claims 4, 11 & 18, Xu in view of Du discloses everything as disclosed in claims 2, 9 & 16 respectively but is silent to wherein calculating the second area of the target region comprises: generating a second image having a same size as the monitoring image; obtaining second vertex coordinates of the target region in the monitoring image; generating a second target region in the second image according to the second vertex coordinates; processing the second target region and obtaining a second contour region; extracting second contour information of the second contour region; and calculating the second area according to the second contour information.
However, Hart discloses wherein calculating the second area of the target region comprises: generating a second image having a same size as the monitoring image; obtaining second vertex coordinates of the target region in the monitoring image; generating a second target region in the second image according to the second vertex coordinates; processing the second target region and obtaining a second contour region; extracting second contour information of the second contour region; and calculating the second area according to the second contour information. ([0056, 0104, 0114-0115])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Xu in view of Du’s disclosure to include the above limitations in order to generate an image representation corresponding to the target region, obtain contour information defining the target region, and calculate the area of the target region from the resulting contour information.
As to claims 5, 12 & 19, Xu in view of Du discloses everything as disclosed in claims 2, 9 & 16 respectively but is silent to wherein calculating the third area of the combined region comprises: combining the first target region and the second target region, and obtaining the third image; performing an image processing on the third image and extracting a maximum contour region from the third image, and obtaining a third contour region; extracting third contour information of the third contour region; and calculating the third area according to the third contour information.
However, Hart discloses wherein calculating the third area of the combined region comprises: combining the first target region and the second target region, and obtaining the third image; performing an image processing on the third image and extracting a maximum contour region from the third image, and obtaining a third contour region; extracting third contour information of the third contour region; and calculating the third area according to the third contour information. ([0005-0006, 0114-0115, 0139-0140])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Xu in view of Du’s disclosure to include the above limitations in order to obtain an image representation of the combined region, identify the maximum contour corresponding to that region and calculate the area of the combined region from the resulting contour information.
Claims 6, 13 & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (U.S. Publication 2021/0327086) in view of Du et al. (U.S. Publication 2018/0181881)
as applied in claims 1, 8 & 15 above further in view of Iventosch et al. (U.S. Publication 2019/0385009)
As to claims 6, 13 & 20, Xu in view of Du discloses everything as disclosed in claims 1, 8 & 15 respectively but is silent to wherein detecting a target object from a monitoring image comprises: inputting the monitoring image into a pre-trained target detection model; generating a target candidate frame by using the pre-trained target detection model to process the monitoring image; and surrounding the target object in the monitoring image by the target candidate frame, wherein a corresponding area surrounded by the target candidate box is the target region.
However, Iventosch discloses wherein detecting a target object from a monitoring image comprises: inputting the monitoring image into a pre-trained target detection model; generating a target candidate frame by using the pre-trained target detection model to process the monitoring image; and surrounding the target object in the monitoring image by the target candidate frame, wherein a corresponding area surrounded by the target candidate box is the target region. ([0030-0031, 0038-0040])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Xu in view of Du’s disclosure to include the above limitations in order to process the monitoring image using a pre-trained target detection model, generate candidate region identifying possible locations of the target object, and provide a bounding box surrounding the detected target object.
CONCLUSION
No prior art has been found for claims 3, 10 & 17 in their current form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Stephen P Coleman whose telephone number is (571)270-5931. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8AM-5PM.
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, Andrew Moyer can be reached at (571) 272-9523. 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.
Stephen P. Coleman
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2675
/STEPHEN P COLEMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2675
Prosecution Insights