DETAILED ACTION
[1] Remarks
I. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
II. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined, where claims 1-20 is/are rejected. Explanations will be provided below.
III. Inventor and/or assignee search were performed and determined no double patenting rejection(s) is/are necessary.
IV. Patent eligibility (updated in 2019) shown by the following: Claims 1-20 pass patent eligibility test because there is/are no limitation or a combination of limitations amounting to an abstract idea. Also, the following limitation or the combinations of the limitations:
“acquire a video including a shielding object and a target object; detect the target object entering behind the shielding object and becoming invisible in the video; predict an appearance timing of the target object from behind the shielding object” effects a transformation or a reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing / adds a specific limitation(s) other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application and providing improvements to the technical field of object tracking, which recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and amounting significant more.
[2] 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.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim(s) 1-8 are not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA U.S.C. 112 6th paragraph because of the following reason(s): limitations are modified by sufficient structure or material for performing the claimed function.
Claim(s) 9-20 do not require 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA U.S.C. 112 6th paragraph interpretation because they are method claims and / or they are CRM claims.
Upon examination of the specification and claims, the examiner has determined, under the best understanding of the scope of the claim(s), rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)/(b) is not necessitated because of the following reasons: sufficient support are provided in the written description / drawings of the invention.
[3] Grounds of Rejection
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
1. 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.
2. Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 9-11, 13, 15, and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PHAM (US 20140286531) in view of Han (US 20050104727).
Regarding claim 1, PHAM discloses an information processing system comprising: at least one memory storing instructions; and at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory and configured to execute the instructions to:
acquire a video including a shielding object and a target object (see figure 6, illustration below, first frame, the object and shielding object);
detect the target object entering behind the shielding object and becoming invisible in the video (see figure 6, middle frame, the object is behind the shielding object “occlusion”);
predict an appearance timing of the target object from behind the shielding object (see paragraph 46, If the walking person is hidden by the building (upper low in FIG. 6), in the same way as the second case, the occlusion time is estimated); and
PHAM is silent in disclosing make a notification when the target object does not appear from behind the shielding object after a predetermined time has elapsed from the predicted appearance timing.
Han discloses a notification when the target object does not appear from behind the shielding object after a predetermined time has elapsed from the predicted appearance timing (see figure 3A illustration below, in order from a to c, where the predicted time is 1 unit time from i+1 to i+2 and the disappearance of B and C is read as the notification):
PNG
media_image1.png
315
919
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a step making a notification when a target disappeared behind a shield and failing to reappear to ensure operators maintain awareness preventing system blind spots from hiding potential threats / suspicion activity triggering high-alert and a search, which improves security.
Regarding claim 2, PHAM discloses the information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute instructions to predict the appearance timing of the target object based on an entering speed of the target object to behind the shielding object (see paragraph 45, as to the velocity, by deciding whether the moving object is a person or a vehicle, and by previously training an averaged velocity, the occlusion time can be estimated, this velocity is read as the speed).
Regarding claim 3, PHAM discloses the information processing system according to claim 1, further comprising a display for displaying the notification on the acquired video (see figure 6 illustration below):
PNG
media_image2.png
199
330
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claim 5, PHAM discloses the information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute instructions to predict a position of the target behind the shielding object (see figure 6 illustration below):
PNG
media_image3.png
163
722
media_image3.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claim 7, PHAM discloses the information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute instructions to predict an appearance position of the target from behind the shielding object (see figure 6 illustration below, the target appeared behind the shielding object):
PNG
media_image3.png
163
722
media_image3.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claim 9 see the rationale and rejection for claim 1.
Regarding claim 10 see the rationale and rejection for claim 2.
Regarding claim 11 see the rationale and rejection for claim 3.
Regarding claim 13 see the rationale and rejection for claim 5.
Regarding claim 15 see the rationale and rejection for claim 7.
Regarding claim 17 see the rationale and rejection for claim 1.
Regarding claim 18 see the rationale and rejection for claim 2.
Regarding claim 19 see the rationale and rejection for claim 3.
3. Claims 4, 12 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PHAM (US 20140286531) in view of Han (US 20050104727) and Kitagawa (US 20140267751).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of PHAM and Hand as a whole discloses all the limitations of claim 1, but is silent in disclosing the information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute instructions to generate a video by superimposing the notification on the acquired video. Kitagawa discloses the information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute instructions to generate a video by superimposing the notification on the acquired video (see figure 15 illustration below):
PNG
media_image4.png
328
618
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include generating a video by superimposing the notification on the acquired video to ensuring the context is never lost and visual records that provides operators real time awareness of alerts while preserving an security footage, improving user experience.
Regarding claims 12 and 20 see the rationale and rejection for claim 4.
4. Claims 6, 8, 14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PHAM (US 20140286531) in view of Han (US 20050104727) and Rogers (US 20050229227).
Regarding claim 6, PHAM discloses all the limitations of claim 5 but is silent in disclosing the information processing system according to claim 5, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute instructions to generate a video by superimposing a mark showing the position of the target object on the shielding object in the acquired video.
Rogers discloses the information processing system according to claim 5, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute instructions to generate a video by superimposing a mark showing the position of the target object on the shielding object in the acquired video (see figure19, where 547 are superimposed on the scene, person is the shielding object shielding the sofa and the sofa is the target).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include to generate a video by superimposing a mark showing the position of the target object to provide visual proof of suspect's exact coordinates and actions during an event to enhance visual tracking improve human comprehension in fast-moving visual data.
Regarding claim 8, Rogers discloses the information processing system according to claim 7, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute instructions to generate a video by superimposing a mark showing the appearance position of the target object on the acquired video (see figure19, where 547 are superimposed on the scene, person is the shielding object shielding the sofa and the sofa is the target). See the motivation for claim 6
Regarding claim 14 see the rationale and rejection for claim 6.
Regarding claim 16 see the rationale and rejection for claim 8.
CONTACT INFORMATION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX LIEW (duty station is located in New York City) whose telephone number is (571)272-8623 (FAX 571-273-8623), cell (917)763-1192 or email alexa.liew@uspto.gov. Please note the examiner cannot reply through email unless an internet communication authorization is provided by the applicant. The examiner can be reached anytime.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, MISTRY ONEAL R, can be reached on (313)446-4912. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALEX KOK S LIEW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2674 Telephone: 571-272-8623
Date: 9/16/26
Prosecution Insights