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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 - 20 are currently subject to non-statutory double patent rejections, but are otherwise not subject to any prior art rejections under either 35 U.S.C. § 102 or 35 U.S.C. § 103. Assuming that the foregoing shortcomings of these claims were rectified, these claims would be allowable.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Independent claims 1 and 12 recite the same features as were found allowable in parent application no. 18/226141, which issued as United States patent no. 12,205,364 on 21 January 2025. These claims are found allowable for the same reasons as were provided in the parent application.
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 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.
(Continued on next page)
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,170,268. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown in the following table:
Present Application
Claim 1
U.S. Patent No. 11,170,268
Claim 1
A system, comprising:
A system, comprising:
at least one processor; and
at least one processor; and
at least one memory storing computer-executable instructions, wherein the at least one processor is configured to access the at least one memory and execute the computer executable instructions to:
at least one memory storing computer-executable instructions, wherein the at least one processor is configured to access the at least one memory and execute the computer-executable instructions to:
present, via a first user interface, a set of detections or potential detections of one or more entities across a first set of image frames, wherein at least a first portion of the set of detections is unlinked;
present, via a first user interface, a set of detections of an entity across a first set of image frames;
(See Note 1 below)
receive, via the first user interface or a second user interface, an indication that at least a second portion of the set of detections is linked; and
receive, via the first user interface or a second user interface, a manual detection of the entity within the first set of image frames or within a second set of image frames; and construct a representation of at least a portion of a travel path of the entity, the constructing comprising appending the manual detection of the entity to the first set of image frames.
construct a representation of at least a portion of a path of the one or more entities, the constructing comprising appending the second portion of the set of detections indicated as linked.
construct a representation of at least a portion of a travel path of the entity, the constructing comprising appending the manual detection of the entity to the first set of image frames.
Note 1: At least a portion of the set of detections of an entity across a first set of image frames are necessarily “unlinked” to the manual detections because the manual detections have not yet been appended (linked).
Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,170,268 in view of OFFICIAL NOTICE. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Although claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,170,268 recites first and second interfaces of a computer system (i.e., processor and memory), claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,170,268 does not specify the system is portable or handheld. However, this limitation was known in the art: OFFICAL NOTICE is hereby taken that, at the effective filing date of the present application interfaces associated with a portable or handheld device, such as a laptop computer or smartphone, were known in the art. At the time of the filing of the present application, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a portable or handheld device, such as laptop computer or smartphone, as was known in the art, when practicing the invention recited by claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,170,268. The motivation for doing so comes from the prior art, wherein it was known that portable and handheld devices are convenient to users. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine OFFICIAL NOTICE with claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,170,268 to obtain the invention specified in this claim.
Claim 3 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 11,170,268. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown in the following table:
Present Application
Claim 3
U.S. Patent No. 11,170,268
Claim 3
The system of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to:
The system of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to:
receiving a rejection of a first subset of the first portion of the first set of image frames, the rejection indicating that the one or more entities are absent; and
receiving a rejection of a portion of the first set of image frames, the rejected portion comprising a first subset of the image frames in which the entity is absent; and
in response to receiving the rejection of the portion, excluding the portion from the representation and modifying a detection algorithm based on the rejection.
in response to receiving the rejection of the portion, excluding the portion from the representation and modifying a detection algorithm based on the rejection.
Claim 4 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 11,170,268. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown in the following table:
Present Application
Claim 4
U.S. Patent No. 11,170,268
Claim 4
The system of claim 3, wherein the first subset corresponds to a different entity of a same type as the one or more entities; and the at least one processor is configured to: modify the detection algorithm to classify the different entity as a different entity of a same type as the one or more entities.
The system of claim 1, wherein the rejected portion corresponds to a different entity of a same type as the entity; and the detection algorithm is modified to classify the different entity as a different entity of a same type as the entity.
Claim 5 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 11,170,268. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown in the following table:
Present Application
Claim 5
U.S. Patent No. 11,170,268
Claim 5
The system of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to, in response to receiving the indication that at least a second portion of the set of detections is linked, recognize the one or more entities within a second set of image frames according to the indication.
The system of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to, in response to receiving the manual detection of the entity, recognize the entity within a second set of image frames according to the manual detection.
Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 11,170,268. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown in the following table:
Present Application
Claim 6
U.S. Patent No. 11,170,268
Claim 6
The system of claim 1, wherein the indication comprises a first indication, and the at least one processor is configured to: receive, via the first user interface or the second user interface, a second indication that the first portion is linked to the second portion, wherein, in the first portion, one or more first instances of the one or more entities are distinct in appearance or shape from one or more second instances of the one or more entities in the second portion; and
The system of claim 5, wherein the manual detection of the entity comprises a second instance of the entity that is distinct in appearance or shape from a first instance of the entity, and the recognizing of the entity within the second set of image frames comprises recognizing that the second instance corresponds to a common
entity as the first instance.
(Incorporated from Claim 5)
The system of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to, in response to receiving the manual detection of the entity, recognize the entity within a second set of image frames according to the manual detection.
construct an updated representation of at least the portion of the path of the one or more entities, the constructing comprising appending the first portion to the second portion of the set of detections indicated as linked.
(Incorporated from Claim 1)
construct a representation of at least a portion of a travel path of the entity, the constructing comprising appending the manual detection of the entity to the first set of image frames.
(Continued on next page)
Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 11,170,268. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown in the following table:
Present Application
Claim 7
U.S. Patent No. 11,170,268
Claim 6
The system of claim 1, wherein the indication comprises a first indication, and the at least one processor is configured to: receive, via the first user interface or the second user interface, a third indication that at least a third portion of a different set of detections is linked to the second portion, wherein, in the third portion, one or more third instances of the one or more entities are distinct in appearance or shape from one or more second instances of the one or more entities in the second portion; and
The system of claim 5, wherein the manual detection of the entity comprises a second instance of the entity that is distinct in appearance or shape from a first instance of the entity, and the recognizing of the entity within the second set of image frames comprises recognizing that the second instance corresponds to a common
entity as the first instance.
(Incorporated from Claim 5)
The system of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to, in response to receiving the manual detection of the entity, recognize the entity within a second set of image frames according to the manual detection.
construct an updated representation of at least the portion of the path of the one or more entities, the constructing comprising appending the third portion to the second portion of the set of detections indicated as linked.
(Incorporated from Claim 1)
construct a representation of at least a portion of a travel path of the entity, the constructing comprising appending the manual detection of the entity to the first set of image frames.
Claim 8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,170,268. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown in the following table:
Present Application
Claim 8
U.S. Patent No. 11,170,268
Claim 7
The system of claim 7, wherein the at least one processor is configured to:
modify a detection algorithm based on the third indication, wherein the detection algorithm prior to the modification classified any entities within the different set of detections as a different entity.
The system of claim 5, wherein the recognizing of the entity comprises modifying a detection algorithm to classify the entity according to the manual detection, wherein the detection algorithm prior to the modification classified the entity within the second set of image frames as a different entity.
Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,170,268. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown in the following table:
Present Application
Claim 9
U.S. Patent No. 11,170,268
Claim 8
The system of claim 7, wherein the third portion corresponds to a partially obscured view of the one or more entities, and the at least one processor is configured to, in response to receiving the third indication, recognize the partially obscured view of the one or more entities in other detections as matching the one or more entities.
The system of claim 1, wherein the manual detection of the entity corresponds to a partially obscured view of the entity, and the at least one processor is configured to, in response to receiving the manual detection of the entity, recognize the entity according to the partially obscured view of the entity.
Claim 10 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,170,268. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown in the following table:
Present Application
Claim 10
U.S. Patent No. 11,170,268
Claim 9
The system of claim 7, wherein the third portion corresponds to a discontinuity along a boundary of two image frames, and the at least one processor is configured to, in response to receiving the third indication, recognize any existence of the one or more entities along other image frame boundaries.
The system of claim 1, wherein the manual detection of the entity corresponds to a discontinuity along a boundary of two image frames, and the at least one processor is configured to, in response to receiving the manual detection of the entity, recognize the entity along other image frame boundaries.
Claim 11 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 11,170,268. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown in the following table:
Present Application
Claim 11
U.S. Patent No. 11,170,268
Claim 10
The system of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the computer-executable instructions to perform a geo-rectification of the representation to adjust the representation to conform to underlying static map data, wherein the representation failed to conform to the underlying static map data prior to the geo-rectification.
The system of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the computer-executable instructions to perform a geo-rectification of the representation to adjust the representation to conform to underlying static map data, wherein the representation failed to conform to the underlying static map data prior to
the geo-rectification.
Claim 12 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,170,268. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown in the following table:
Present Application
Claim 12
U.S. Patent No. 11,170,268
Claim 11
A computer implemented method, comprising:
A method, comprising:
presenting, via a first user interface, a set of detections or potential detections of one or more entities across a first set of image frames, wherein at least a first portion of the set of detections is unlinked;
presenting, via a first user interface, a set of detections of an entity across a first set of image frames;
(See Note 1 below)
receiving, via the first user interface or a second user interface, an indication that at least a second portion of the set of detections is linked; and
receiving, via the first user interface or a
second user interface, a manual detection of the entity within the first set of image
frames or within a second set of image frames; and constructing a representation of at
least a portion of a travel path of the entity, the constructing comprising appending the
manual detection of the entity to the first set of image frames.
constructing a representation of at least a portion of a path of the one or more entities, the constructing comprising appending the second portion of the set of detections indicated as linked.
constructing a representation of at
least a portion of a travel path of the entity, the constructing comprising appending the
manual detection of the entity to the first set of image frames.
Note 1: At least a portion of the set of detections of an entity across a first set of image frames are necessarily “unlinked” to the manual detections because the manual detections have not yet been appended (linked).
(Continued on next page)
Claim 13 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,170,268. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown in the following table:
Present Application
Claim 13
U.S. Patent No. 11,170,268
Claim 13
The computer implemented method of claim 12, further comprising: receiving a rejection of a first subset of the first portion of the first set of image frames, the rejection indicating that the one or more entities are absent; and
The method of claim 11, further comprising receiving a rejection of a portion of the first set of image frames, the rejected portion comprising a first subset of the image frames in which the entity is absent; and
in response to receiving the rejection of the portion, excluding the portion from the representation and modifying a detection algorithm based on the rejection.
in response to receiving the rejection of the portion, excluding the portion from the representation and modifying a detection algorithm based on the rejection.
Claim 14 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,170,268. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown in the following table:
Present Application
Claim 14
U.S. Patent No. 11,170,268
Claim 14
The computer implemented method of claim 13, wherein the first subset corresponds to a different entity of a same type as the one or more entities, and the computer implemented method further comprises:
The method of claim 11, wherein the rejected portion corresponds to a different entity of a same type as the entity; and the method further comprises:
modifying the detection algorithm to classify the different entity as a different entity of a same type as the one or more entities.
modifying the detection algorithm to classify the different entity as a different entity of a same type
as the entity.
(Continued on next page)
Claim 15 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,170,268. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown in the following table:
Present Application
Claim 15
U.S. Patent No. 11,170,268
Claim 15
The computer implemented method of claim 12, further comprising: in response to receiving the indication that at least a second portion of the set of detections is linked, recognizing the one or more entities within a second set of image frames according to the indication.
The method of claim 11, further comprising: in response to receiving the manual detection of the entity, recognizing the entity within a second set of image frames according to the manual detection.
Claim 16 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,170,268. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown in the following table:
Present Application
Claim 16
U.S. Patent No. 11,170,268
Claim 16
The computer implemented method of claim 12, wherein the indication comprises a first indication, and the computer implemented method further comprises: receiving, via the first user interface or the second user interface, a second indication that the first portion is linked to the second portion, wherein, in the first portion, one or more first instances of the one or more entities are distinct in appearance or shape from one or more second instances of the one or more entities in the second portion; and
The method of claim 15, wherein the manual detection of the entity comprises a second instance of the entity that is distinct in appearance or shape from a first instance of the entity, and the recognizing of the entity within the second set of image frames comprises recognizing that the second instance corresponds to a common
entity as the first instance.
(Incorporated from Claim 15)
The method of claim 11, further comprising: in response to receiving the manual detection of the entity, recognizing the entity within a second set of image frames according to the manual detection.
constructing an updated representation of at least the portion of the path of the one or more entities, the constructing comprising appending the first portion to the second portion of the set of detections indicated as linked
(Incorporated from Claim 11)
constructing a representation of at least a portion of a travel path of the entity, the constructing comprising appending the manual detection of the entity to the first set of image frames.
Claim 17 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,170,268. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown in the following table:
Present Application
Claim 17
U.S. Patent No. 11,170,268
Claim 16
The computer implemented method of claim 12, wherein the indication comprises a first indication, and the computer implemented method further comprises: receiving, via the first user interface or the second user interface, a third indication that at least a third portion of a different set of detections is linked to the second portion, wherein, in the third portion, one or more third instances of the one or more entities are distinct in appearance or shape from one or more second instances of the one or more entities in the second portion; and
The method of claim 15, wherein the manual detection of the entity comprises a second instance of the entity that is distinct in appearance or shape from a first instance of the entity, and the recognizing of the entity within the second set of image frames comprises recognizing that the second instance corresponds to a common
entity as the first instance.
(Incorporated from Claim 15)
The method of claim 11, further comprising: in response to receiving the manual detection of the entity, recognizing the entity within a second set of image frames according to the manual detection.
constructing an updated representation of at least the portion of the path of the one or more entities, the constructing comprising appending the third portion to the second portion of the set of detections indicated as linked.
(Incorporated from Claim 11)
constructing a representation of at least a portion of a travel path of the entity, the constructing comprising appending the manual detection of the entity to the first set of image frames.
Claim 18 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,170,268. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown in the following table:
Present Application
Claim 18
U.S. Patent No. 11,170,268
Claim 17
The computer implemented method of claim 17, further comprising modifying a detection algorithm based on the third indication, wherein the detection algorithm prior to the modification classified any entities within the different set of detections as a different entity.
The method of claim 15, wherein the recognizing of the entity comprises modifying a detection algorithm to classify the entity according to the manual detection, wherein the detection algorithm prior to the modification classified the entity within the second set of image frames as a different entity.
Claim 19 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,170,268. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown in the following table:
Present Application
Claim 19
U.S. Patent No. 11,170,268
Claim 18
The computer implemented method of claim 17, wherein the third portion corresponds to a partially obscured view of the one or more entities, and the computer implemented method further comprises:
The method of claim 11, wherein the manual detection of the entity corresponds to a partially obscured view of the entity, and the method further comprises:
in response to receiving the third indication, recognizing the partially obscured view of the one or more entities in other detections as matching the one or more entities.
in response to receiving the manual detection of the entity, recognizing the entity according to the partially obscured view of the entity.
Claim 20 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,170,268. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown in the following table:
Present Application
Claim 20
U.S. Patent No. 11,170,268
Claim 19
The computer implemented method of claim 17, wherein the third portion corresponds to a discontinuity along a boundary of two image frames, and the computer implemented method further comprises:
The method of claim 11, wherein the manual detection of the entity corresponds to a discontinuity along a boundary of two image frames, and the method further comprises:
in response to receiving the third indication, recognizing any existence of the one or more entities along other image frame boundaries.
in response to receiving the manual detection of the entity, recognizing the entity along other image frame boundaries.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID F DUNPHY whose telephone number is (571)270-1230. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am - 5 pm.
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, Chineyere Wills-Burns can be reached on (571) 272-9752. 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.
/DAVID F DUNPHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2668
Prosecution Insights