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 .
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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 12211318. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims of instant application are anticipated by claims of U.S. Patent No. 12211318 as shown below.
Instant claim 1 <= '318 claims 1, 8
Instant claim 2 <= '318 claims 1, 8
Instant claim 3 <= '318 claims 1, 8
Instant claim 4 <= '318 claims 1, 8
Instant claim 5 <= '318 claims 1, 5, 8
Instant claim 6 <= '318 claims 1, 5, 6, 7, 8
Instant claim 7 <= '318 claims 1, 4, 5, 6, 8
Instant claim 8 <= '318 claims 1, 8, 11
Instant claim 9 <= '318 claims 1, 8, 10
Instant claim 10 <= '318 claims 12, 8
Instant claim 11 <= '318 claims 13, 8
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsunaga (U.S. PG-PUB NO. 2023/0040994) in view of Wen (U.S. PG-PUB NO. 2021/0406679).
-Regarding claim 1, Matsunaga discloses a processing apparatus comprising: a storage device configured to store instructions (read only memory (ROM) 401, a random access memory (RAM) 402, [0103]); and one or more processors (central processing unit (CPU) 400, [0103]), wherein the one or more processors execute the instructions stored in the storage device to: convert a first image into a second image with a lower resolution than a resolution of the first image (reduces the number of pixels of the captured image (reduces the resolution), [0063]), and specify a target region including a predetermined objective target in the second image on the basis of the second image (attention map 130 includes, for example, information indicating a detection window for limiting a target region for the object recognition with respect to a range indicated in the image data 100, [0109]), and estimate an objective target of tracking target among a plurality of objective targets using at least some of the feature amounts of the objective target from obtained the target region in the first image (the object recognition processing is performed on the region limited by the attention map 130, leading to the reduction in the processing amount of the object recognition processing, [0111]).
Matsunaga is silent to teaching that specify a target region including the objective target in the first image on the basis of the specified target region in the second image. However, the claimed limitation is well known in the art as evidenced by Wen.
In the same field of endeavor, Wen teaches specify a target region including the objective target in the first image on the basis of the specified target region in the second image (the source area determiner 112 may define a region 116 as a subset of an image 106 that is downsampled by the downsampler 114 to generate a multi-resolution patch 108, [0038]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Matsunaga with the teaching of Wen in order to improve performance while simplifying programming.
-Regarding claim 2, the combination further discloses wherein the one or more processors execute the instructions to: estimate the objective target as the tracking target, in a case in which at least some of the feature amounts of the objective target obtained from the target region in the first image conform to the registered feature amounts by amounts equal to or greater than a threshold value (Matsunaga, The region information includes information indicating a position in the layer image #1 and a value indicating the object likelihood at the position, [0117]).
-Regarding claim 3, the combination further discloses wherein the registered feature amounts are stored in a storage in advance (Matsunaga, [0087]).
-Regarding claim 8, the combination further discloses wherein the processing apparatus is included in a moving object (Matsunaga, vehicle-exterior-information detection unit 10, [0048]).
-Regarding claim 9, the combination further discloses wherein the processing apparatus is included in a device different from a moving object (Wen, server 978, [0198]).
-Regarding claim 10, Matsunaga discloses a processing method comprising, by a computer: converting a first image into a second image with a lower resolution than a resolution of the first image reduces the number of pixels of the captured image (reduces the resolution), [0063]); and specifying a target region including a predetermined objective target in the second image on the basis of the second image (attention map 130 includes, for example, information indicating a detection window for limiting a target region for the object recognition with respect to a range indicated in the image data 100, [0109]) and, estimating an objective target of tracking target among a plurality of objective targets using at least some of the feature amounts of the objective target from obtained the target region in the first image (the object recognition processing is performed on the region limited by the attention map 130, leading to the reduction in the processing amount of the object recognition processing, [0111]).
Matsunaga is silent to teaching that specifying a target region including the objective target in the first image on the basis of the specified target region in the second image. However, the claimed limitation is well known in the art as evidenced by Wen.
In the same field of endeavor, Wen teaches specifying a target region including the objective target in the first image on the basis of the specified target region in the second image (the source area determiner 112 may define a region 116 as a subset of an image 106 that is downsampled by the downsampler 114 to generate a multi-resolution patch 108, [0038]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Matsunaga with the teaching of Wen in order to improve performance while simplifying programming.
-Regarding claim 11, Matsunaga discloses a non-transitory computer storage medium storing instructions (read only memory (ROM) 401, a random access memory (RAM) 402, [0103]) causing a computer to execute: converting a first image into a second image with a lower resolution than a resolution of the first image (reduces the number of pixels of the captured image (reduces the resolution), [0063]); and specifying a target region including a predetermined objective target in the second image on the basis of the second image (attention map 130 includes, for example, information indicating a detection window for limiting a target region for the object recognition with respect to a range indicated in the image data 100, [0109]) and estimating an objective target of tracking target among a plurality of objective targets using at least some of the feature amounts of the objective target from obtained the target region in the first image (the object recognition processing is performed on the region limited by the attention map 130, leading to the reduction in the processing amount of the object recognition processing, [0111]).
Matsunaga is silent to teaching that specifying a target region including the objective target in the first image on the basis of the specified target region in the second image. However, the claimed limitation is well known in the art as evidenced by Wen.
In the same field of endeavor, Wen teaches specifying a target region including the objective target in the first image on the basis of the specified target region in the second image (the source area determiner 112 may define a region 116 as a subset of an image 106 that is downsampled by the downsampler 114 to generate a multi-resolution patch 108, [0038]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Matsunaga with the teaching of Wen in order to improve performance while simplifying programming.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsunaga (U.S. PG-PUB NO. 2023/0040994) in view of Wen (U.S. PG-PUB NO. 2021/0406679) and further in view of Ren (U.S. PG-PUB NO. 2018/0247117).
-Regarding claim 4, the combination is silent to teaching that wherein the objective target is a person, and the one or more processors execute the instructions to estimate the person of the tracking target using feature amounts of the person's face obtained from a region including the person in the first image. However, the claimed limitation is well known in the art as evidenced by Ren.
In the same field of endeavor, Ren teaches wherein the objective target is a person, and the one or more processors execute the instructions to estimate the person of the tracking target using feature amounts of the person's face obtained from a region including the person in the first image (face detection and identification may proceed in processing block 285, [0020]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the combination with the teaching of Ren as applying a known technique to improve a similar device, with the predictable result of resolving target identify among several persons.
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsunaga (U.S. PG-PUB NO. 2023/0040994) in view of Wen (U.S. PG-PUB NO. 2021/0406679) and further in view of Lin (U.S. PG-PUB NO. 2021/0197384).
-Regarding claim 5, the combination is silent to teaching that wherein the objective target is a person, and the one or more processors execute the instructions to estimate the person of the tracking target using feature amounts of the person obtained by performing skeleton processing on a region including the person in the first image. However, the claimed limitation is well known in the art as evidenced by Lin.
In the same field of endeavor, Lin teaches wherein the objective target is a person, and the one or more processors execute the instructions to estimate the person of the tracking target using feature amounts of the person obtained by performing skeleton processing on a region including the person in the first image (the preset key point can be determined according to the main body part included in the human posture image, which are points for representing human body parts, [0023]; light weight open pose (LWOP) detection model, [0025]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the combination with the teaching of Lin in order to improve image processing efficiency.
-Regarding claim 6, the combination further discloses wherein the one or more processors execute the instructions to use a plurality of features amounts among feature amounts of the face, feature amounts of the upper body, and feature amounts of the lower body of the person obtained on the basis of a result of the skeleton (Lin, the pixel information of 17 preset key points of the human body is obtained, where 6 of them are on the arm, 6 of them are on the leg, and 5 of them are located from the head to the abdomen, [0023]).
-Regarding claim 7, the combination further discloses wherein feature amounts of the upper body of the person include a color of the upper body part, and feature amounts of the lower body of the person include a color of the lower body part (Lin, the pixel information of 17 preset key points of the human body is obtained, where 6 of them are on the arm, 6 of them are on the leg, and 5 of them are located from the head to the abdomen, [0023]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PING Y HSIEH whose telephone number is (571)270-3011. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-4pm.
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, Jennifer Mehmood can be reached at (571) 272-2976. 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.
/PING Y HSIEH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2664
Prosecution Insights