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 .
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without integration into a practical application or recitation of significantly more.
In the analysis below, the system claim of independent claim 1 is considered representative of independent claims 5 and 6 since all of the independent claims recite identical steps despite being directed to different statutory matter. Furthermore, each of independent claims 1, 5 and 6 are directed to one of the four statutory categories of eligible subject matter; thus, the claims pass Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test (See flowchart in MPEP 2106).
Step 2A, prong 1: Yes
The independent claims are directed to
PNG
media_image1.png
312
658
media_image1.png
Greyscale
When viewed under the broadest most reasonable interpretation, the instant claims are directed to Judicial Exception – an abstract idea belong to the group of mental process. Particularly, steps a), b) and c) can be performed mentally. For example, a person visibly monitoring a surveillance image can mentally/visibly detect a particular object, decide to mentally apply tracking process (i.e., a person mentally follows an object/person/vehicle in a scene), determines that the object is a moving person/vehicle or a stationary object such as a table, a tree or a traffic sign.
Reference may be made to the July 2024 PEG and those various limitations drawn to the mental processes grouping(s), to include those of Example 47 claim 2. The claims/limitations in question are recited at a high level of generality and lack any specifics precluding such ‘performing’, ‘determining’, ‘implementing’, ‘executing’, etc., from being interpreted under the mental processes grouping practically performed in the mind. As identified in the most recent PEG, even a form of automating that broadly/generically involves the use of a machine learning model or a computer, would fail to preclude the limitations in question from being drawn to the mental processes grouping (see guidance with respect to ‘apply it’ consideration of MPEP 2106.05(f)). Hence, the limitations a), b) and c) are interpreted as mental steps. Dependent claims similarly analyzed, further limit said ‘executing’ second action, but not in such a manner so as to preclude an interpretation directed to the identified exception.
Additional elements
The additional elements recited in each of the independent claims are a camera and a processing circuitry (claims 1, 5 and 6).
Step 2A, prong 2: No
The above-identified additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The steps of capturing and image for recognizing a target amount to data gather which is insignificant pre-solution activity which does not integrate the claimed mental process into a practical application (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Each of the other additional elements (a camera, a program and a processing circuitry) amounts to merely using a generic computer as a tool to perform the claimed mental process. Implementing an abstract idea on a computer does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Moreover, the additional elements of the claims do not recite an improvement in the functioning of a computer or other technology or technical field, the claimed steps are not performed using a particular machine, the claimed steps do not effect a transformation, and the claims do not apply the judicial exception in any meaningful way beyond generically linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (See MPEP 2106.04(d)). Therefore, the analysis under prong two of step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test does not result in a conclusion of eligibility (See flowchart in MPEP 2106).
Step 2B: No
The pending claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As explained above in Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Each of the additional elements are generic computer features which perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional and do not amount to more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system.
Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation, and mere implementation on a generic computer does not add significantly more to the claims. Accordingly, the analysis under step 2B of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test does not result in a conclusion of eligibility (See flowchart in MPEP 2106).
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.
Claims 1 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cho USPGPUB 2014/0240167.
With respect to claim 1, Cho discloses a target recognition system for recognizing a target shown in an image captured by an infrastructure camera (figs. 3 & 4), the target recognition system comprising:
processing circuitry configured to:
detect a first target shown in the image as a temporary target (paragraphs 36 & 37);
when a class of the temporary target is a movable target, apply a tracking process to the temporary target and determine that the first target is a real movable target based on a result of detection of the temporary target in a first period (paragraphs 47, 48 & 52); and
when the class of the temporary target is a stationary target, determine that the first target is a real stationary target based on a result of detection of the temporary target in a second period without applying the tracking process to the temporary target (paragraphs 36~42).
It should be noted that in order to determine that an object is moving or not, at least 2+ frames/images must be analyzed which inherently involves time periods.
With respect to claim 4, Cho discloses the target recognition system according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry outputs a result of determining that the first target is the real movable target or the real stationary target to a subsequent process (transmitting to a server in figs. 3 & 4).
With respect to claims 5 and 6, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 1, are applicable.
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 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Khlifi USPGPUB 20200377119.
With respect to claim 2, Cho discloses the target recognition system according to claim 1, wherein the second period is a period of X frames (X is an integer of 2 or more) but it does not explicitly disclose the step of categorizing the first target as a real stationary target.
Khlifi, the same field of endeavor of analyzing traffic image, determines whether a detected object is static or dynamic (paragraph 19) and categorizing/classifying the object (paragraph 26).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing data, to modify the system of Cho to include the object classification method as taught by Khlifi.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to correctly identify/classify the detected object for further processing such as notifying the user.
With respect to claim 3, Cho discloses the target recognition system according to claim 1, wherein when the class of the temporary target is the stationary target and the temporary target is detected Y times or more (Y is an integer of 2 or more) in the second period, but it does not explicitly disclose the step of categorizing the first target as a real stationary target.
Khlifi, the same field of endeavor of analyzing traffic image, determines whether a detected object is static or dynamic (paragraph 19) and categorizing/classifying the object (paragraph 26).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing data, to modify the system of Cho to include the object classification method as taught by Khlifi.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to correctly identify/classify the detected object for further processing such as notifying the user.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAN S PARK whose telephone number is (571)272-7409. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:00pm.
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.
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.
/CHAN S PARK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2669
Prosecution Insights