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 filed March 20th, 2025 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.98(a)(4) because it lacks the appropriate size fee assertion. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits.
Claim Objections
Claims 11 and 12 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11: “be a logic device” should be --by the logic device--.
Claim 11: “be the logic device” should be --by the logic device--.
Claim 12: “an image capture device” should be --the image capture device--.
Claim 12: “a image capture device parameters” should be --the image capture device parameters--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 9-12, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Eggert et al. (US-20090213219-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Eggert teaches:
A system comprising:
a storage system configured to store geographic reference points associated with a field of view of an image capture device (“a computer readable storage medium for tracking arbitrary real-world objects by estimating their 3D position and 3D velocity of the objects using 2D appearance indicators and multicue depth estimations,” Para [0009]),
the geographic reference points having a geographic location and/or a range from the image capture device (“An approximate estimation of the objects depth (distance to the camera) at time t is obtained from an additional cue which can be but need not be visually based,” Para [0009]);
a logic device configured to:
generate a first estimated location of an object detected in an image generated by the image capture device (“By using a 2D-tracker on the input features at times t and t+dt, the appearance of the object according to the 2D position and the 2D velocity of the object in the camera image are estimated,” Para [0009]),
the first estimated location based at least in part on image capture device parameters (“the changes of the position and orientation of the camera in global space is taken into account to compensate for the motion of the camera and/or the platform on which the camera is mounted,” Para [0012]) and object information derived from the image (“By using a 2D-tracker on the input features at times t and t+dt, the appearance of the object according to the 2D position and the 2D velocity of the object in the camera image are estimated,” Para [0009]);
generate a second estimated location of the object based at least in part on object information derived from the image and the geographic reference points (“An approximate estimation of the objects depth (distance to the camera) at time t is obtained from an additional cue which can be but need not be visually based,” Para [0009]); and
calculate a refined estimated location based on the first estimated location and the second estimated location (“The visual tracking apparatus may estimate the three dimensional (3D) position and velocity of the object by analyzing a two dimensional (2D) appearance of the object and integrating a plurality of visual cues associated with depth estimation,” Para [0008]).
Regarding claim 2, the system of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Eggert teaches the system of claim 1, and further teaches:
wherein the image capture device is configured to capture a plurality of images of a scene within a field of view of the image capture device (“A camera image is captured at time t… A next camera image at time t+dt is captured,” Para [0009]); and
wherein the image capture device parameters comprise a location of the image capture device, a height of the image capture device, an azimuth value, and/or a tilt value (“the changes of the position and orientation of the camera in global space is taken into account to compensate for the motion of the camera and/or the platform on which the camera is mounted,” Para [0012]).
Regarding claim 9, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Eggert teaches the system of claim 1, and further teaches:
wherein the system is a video surveillance system and/or a traffic monitoring system (“Embodiments provide a method, a tracking apparatus, a humanoid robot and a computer readable storage medium that does not require accurate object models of an object in advance to track the object,” Para [0008]).
Regarding claims 10-12 and 19-20, the rejections of claims 1-2 and 9 apply, mutatis mutandis, to these claims.
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.
Claim(s) 3-4 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eggert as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (US-20210377452-A1).
Regarding claim 3, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated herein. Eggert teaches the system of claim 2, and further teaches:
wherein the logic device is further configured to:
measure a range between the image capture device and a plurality of geographic reference points within the field of view using the LRF (“An approximate estimation of the objects depth (distance to the camera) at time t is obtained from an additional cue which can be but need not be visually based,” Para [0009]);
calculate, for each geographic reference point, a geographic location of each reference point based the image capture device parameters and the measured range (“The visual tracking apparatus may estimate the three dimensional (3D) position and velocity of the object by analyzing a two dimensional (2D) appearance of the object and integrating a plurality of visual cues associated with depth estimation,” Para [0008]); and
store data related to each geographic reference point in the storage system, the data comprising one or more image capture device parameters and the measured range (“a computer readable storage medium for tracking arbitrary real-world objects by estimating their 3D position and 3D velocity of the objects using 2D appearance indicators and multicue depth estimations,” Para [0009]).
Eggert is not relied upon to teach the following limitation. Wang, however, further teaches:
comprising a laser range finder (LRF) configured to measure a range between the image capture device and an object within the field of view (“the range finder may be able to measure the distance from the range finder to an object,” Para [0016]).
Wang is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the field of object tracking using range and camera data. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Wang into Eggert for the benefit of more accurate range outputs.
Regarding claim 4, the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated herein. Eggert in view of Wang teaches the system of claim 1, and Eggert further teaches:
wherein the data further comprises a location of the reference point within a captured image corresponding to the LRF measurement (“The visual tracking apparatus may estimate the three dimensional (3D) position and velocity of the object by analyzing a two dimensional (2D) appearance of the object and integrating a plurality of visual cues associated with depth estimation,” Para [0008]).
Regarding claims 13-14, the rejections of claims 3-4 apply, mutatis mutandis, to these claims.
Claim(s) 5 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eggert as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Takeyasu (US-20200394435-A1).
Regarding claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Eggert teaches the system of claim 1, but is not relied upon to teach the following limitations. Takeyasu, however, further teaches:
wherein the logic device is further configured to detect one or more objects in the image and determine an object classification for each of the one or more objects (“inputting the image to a classifier that calculates a confidence score representing likelihood that, for each of the plurality of types, the detected object belongs to the type,” Para [0005]); and
wherein the first estimated location is based at least in part on the object classification (“inputting the image to a classifier that calculates a confidence score representing likelihood that, for each of the plurality of types, the detected object belongs to the type,” Para [0005]), proportion of the field of view occupied by the object (“when a distance to the detected object is a predetermined reference distance,” Para [0005]), and reference object data (“and estimate a distance to the detected object, based on a ratio between the size of the detected object on the image and an estimated size of the detected object on the image,” Para [0005]).
Takeyasu is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the field of determining distance estimation of an object from a camera. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Takeyasu into Eggert for the benefit of more accurate distance estimation.
Regarding claim 15, the rejections of claim 5 applies, mutatis mutandis, to claim 15.
Claim(s) 6 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eggert as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Soohoo (US-20150260498-A1).
Regarding claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Eggert teaches the system of claim 1, but is not relied upon to teach the following limitations. Soohoo, however, further teaches:
wherein the refined estimated location is based on weights assigned to each of the first estimated location and the second estimated location, and/or calculated errors associated with the first estimated location and the second estimated location (“the controller is configured to compare the first position, the second position, the third position, and the fourth position calculated for the target object, and to determine that the calibrated sensor coordinates are inaccurate if a difference between the first position, the second position, the third position, and the fourth position exceeds a threshold,” Para [0009]).
Soohoo is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the field of calculating and refining distance measurements to an object. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Soohoo into Eggert for the benefit of more accurate location estimation.
Regarding claim 16, the rejections of claim 6 applies, mutatis mutandis, to claim 16.
Claim(s) 7 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eggert in view of Soohoo as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Han et al. (US-20110025845-A1).
Regarding claim 7, the rejection of claim 6 is incorporated herein. Eggert in view of Soohoo teach the system of claim 6, and Soohoo further teaches:
wherein the logic device is further configured to refine the estimated location based at least in part on the third estimated location (“the controller is configured to compare the first position, the second position, and the third position calculated for the target object, and to determine that the calibrated sensor coordinates are inaccurate if a difference between the first position, the second position, and the third position exceeds a threshold,” Para [0007]).
Soohoo is not relied upon to teach the following limitations. However, Han further teaches:
wherein the logic device is further configured to generate a third estimated location of the object based on an estimated range from the image capture device to the object based at least in part on the image and the image capture device parameters (“a method for measuring a location and a distance of one object, in which internal and external parameters of one camera are set, specific point coordinates of an object to be measured are extracted from an image which is inputted from the camera in real time, three-dimensional location information is calculated through two-dimensional coordinate system of the camera,” Para [0012]).
Han is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the field of using a single camera to estimate location and distance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Han into Eggert and Soohoo for the benefit of a refined and accurate location estimation, as a variety of location estimations from varying methods of location estimation will yield a more accurate result.
Regarding claim 17, the rejections of claim 7 applies, mutatis mutandis, to claim 17.
Claim(s) 8 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eggert as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Kwon et al. (KR-20170014916-A).
Regarding claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Eggert teaches the system of claim 1, but is not relied upon to teach the following limitations. Kwon, however, further teaches:
wherein the first estimated location is based at least in part on the image capture device parameter (“the present invention proposes a method for estimating coordinate information using information such as the resolution, field of view, and focal length of a monocular camera,” Para [0004]) and a distance in pixels between the object and a reference point (“center line”) in the image (“the step of calculating the actual coordinates (T1<sub>lat</sub>, T1<sub>long</sub>) of a first object according to one embodiment of the present invention includes i) calculating the lateral distance (d<sub>x</sub>) from the center line of a horizontal pixel (Pixel<sub>x</sub>) to the first object (T1) within an image,” Para [0032]).
Kwon is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the field of image depth estimation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Kwon into Eggert for the benefit of a more accurate location estimation.
Regarding claim 18, the rejection of claim 8 applies, mutatis mutandis, to claim 18.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Thomasson et al. (US-20240070897-A1) teaches a method for determining the geoposition of an object using 2D and 3D image location data.
Fechtner et al. (US-20260017808-A1) teaches a method for classifying an object based on its location, among other parameters.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL A OMETZ whose telephone number is (571)272-2535. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am-5:30pm ET Monday-Thursday, 7:30am-3:30pm ET every other Friday.
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, Vu Le can be reached at 571-272-7332. 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.
/Rachel Anne Ometz/Examiner, Art Unit 2668 8/24/26
Rachel.ometz@uspto.gov
/VU LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2668
Prosecution Insights