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 .
Drawings
The 7-page drawings have been considered and placed in the file.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-11 are pending.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Paragraphs [0066] through [0068] describe the details of Figure 7, but cite incorrect labeling numbers of the Figure 7 contents.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word
“means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre -AIA 35
U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder
that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform
the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a communication unit configured to…” in claim 11.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C.
112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to
cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the
claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35
U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the
claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the
claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s)
sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being
interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter (an abstract idea without significantly more). The claims recite a method a system for detecting and tracking an object with a camera. With respect to analysis of independent Claim 1:
Step 1:
With regard to Step 1, the instant claim is directed to a method; and therefore, the claim is directed to one of the statutory categories of inventions.
Step 2A, Prong One:
With regard to Step 2A Prong One, the limitations of, “a step of determining whether a moving object exists in a streaming video; a step of, when it is determined that the moving object exists, recording the streaming video and storing in a file until it is determined that the moving object does not exist; and a step of detecting and tracking the moving object in the streaming video stored in the file”, as drafted, recite an abstract idea, such as the combination of a method, making judgements, and performing calculations that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitations manually of in the human mind. That is, a surveillance technician may see a moving object, and record a video. The technician may then watch the video and detect/track the object in the video. This is a concept that falls under the combination of a grouping of abstract ideas of a mental process and mathematical calculations, i.e., a concept performed in the human mind, evaluation, and/or judgement to detect and track an object.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
The 2019 PEG defines the phrase “integration into a practical application” to
require an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to
apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception. In the instant case, the additional
elements/limitations in the claims, i.e., “storing in a file” and “streaming video stored in the file” are regarded as elements directed to represent insignificant extra-solution activities, such as obtaining security videos and using general computer elements to put the video in a file. These limitations are regarded as insignificant extra solution activities of acquiring surveillance videos, i.e., gathering input information, and using general computer elements to store it, which may not be considered as an indication of integration of the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, the above-mentioned additional elements/limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application; and therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
Because the claims fail under Step 2A, the claims are further evaluated under
Step 2B. The claims herein do not include additional elements that are sufficient to
amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because as discussed above
with respect to integration of the abstract idea into practical application, the additional
elements/limitations, amount to no more than insignificant routine and conventional
elements. The abstract operation/purpose of the method as listed in Claim 1, cannot
provide an inventive concept. Therefore, independent Claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Furthermore, with regard to dependent claims 2-9, viewed individually, these
additional elements/limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are regarded
as either providing additional abstract idea (i.e., mathematical calculations or performing the
limitations in the mind of a surveillance technician) or adding limitations that may not be
considered as significantly more than the abstract idea; which do not provide meaningful
limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea
such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, they
are not patent eligible.
With respect to analysis of independent Claim 10:
Step 1:
With regard to Step 1, the instant claim is directed to a method; and therefore, the claim is directed to one of the statutory categories of inventions.
Step 2A, Prong One:
With regard to Step 2A Prong One, the limitations of, “a communication unit configured to receive a streaming video; and a processor configured to determine whether a moving object exists in the received streaming video, when it is determined that the moving object exists, to record the streaming video and store in a file until it is determined that the moving object does not exist, and to detect and track the moving object in the streaming video stored in the file”, as drafted, recite an abstract idea, such as the combination of a method, making judgements, and performing calculations that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitations manually of in the human mind. That is, a surveillance technician may see a moving object, and record a video. The technician may then watch the video and detect/track the object in the video. This is a concept that falls under the combination of a grouping of abstract ideas of a mental process and mathematical calculations, i.e., a concept performed in the human mind, evaluation, and/or judgement to detect and track an object.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
The 2019 PEG defines the phrase “integration into a practical application” to
require an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to
apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception. In the instant case, the additional
elements/limitations in the claims, i.e., “storing in a file”, “streaming video stored in the file”, and “a communication unit configured to receive a streaming video” are regarded as elements directed to represent insignificant extra-solution activities, such as obtaining security videos and using general computer elements to put the video in a file and outputting a result. These limitations are regarded as insignificant extra solution activities of acquiring surveillance videos, i.e., gathering input information, using general computer elements to store it, and outputting a result, which may not be considered as an indication of integration of the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, the above-mentioned additional elements/limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application; and therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
Because the claims fail under Step 2A, the claims are further evaluated under
Step 2B. The claims herein do not include additional elements that are sufficient to
amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because as discussed above
with respect to integration of the abstract idea into practical application, the additional
elements/limitations, amount to no more than insignificant routine and conventional
elements. The abstract operation/purpose of the method as listed in Claim 10, cannot
provide an inventive concept. Therefore, independent Claim 10 is not patent eligible.
With respect to analysis of independent Claim 11:
Step 1:
With regard to Step 1, the instant claim is directed to a method; and therefore, the claim is directed to one of the statutory categories of inventions.
Step 2A, Prong One:
With regard to Step 2A Prong One, the limitations of, “a step of generating a streaming video; a step of determining whether a moving object exists in the generated streaming video; a step of, when it is determined that the moving object exists, recording the streaming video and storing in a file until it is determined that the moving object does not exist; and a step of detecting and tracking the moving object in the streaming video stored in the file”, as drafted, recite an abstract idea, such as the combination of a method, making judgements, and performing calculations that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitations manually of in the human mind. That is, a surveillance technician may see a moving object, and record a video. The technician may then watch the video and detect/track the object in the video. This is a concept that falls under the combination of a grouping of abstract ideas of a mental process and mathematical calculations, i.e., a concept performed in the human mind, evaluation, and/or judgement to detect and track an object.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
The 2019 PEG defines the phrase “integration into a practical application” to
require an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to
apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception. In the instant case, the additional
elements/limitations in the claims, i.e., “storing in a file”, “streaming video stored in the file”, and “generating a streaming video” are regarded as elements directed to represent insignificant extra-solution activities, such as obtaining security videos (or “generating” the video with a general camera/computer) and using general computer elements to put the video in a file. These limitations are regarded as insignificant extra solution activities of acquiring surveillance videos, i.e., gathering input information, using general computer elements to obtain/store it, and outputting a result, which may not be considered as an indication of integration of the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, the above-mentioned additional elements/limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application; and therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
Because the claims fail under Step 2A, the claims are further evaluated under
Step 2B. The claims herein do not include additional elements that are sufficient to
amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because as discussed above
with respect to integration of the abstract idea into practical application, the additional
elements/limitations, amount to no more than insignificant routine and conventional
elements. The abstract operation/purpose of the method as listed in Claim 11, cannot
provide an inventive concept. Therefore, independent Claim 11 is not patent eligible.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the different embodiments of Changsoo Jeong (US 2018/0192009 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Jeong teaches, “A real-time object tracking method comprising: a step of determining whether a moving object exists in a streaming video;” (Jeong, Abstract discloses; “In one embodiment, an audio/video (A/V) recording and communication device is provided, comprising: a camera configured to capture image data of an object within a field of view; a communication module; and a processing module comprising: a processor; and a motion detection application which configures the processor to: detect motion of the object; capture image data of the object; track the object within the field of view;”) “a step of, when it is determined that the moving object exists, recording the streaming video and storing in a file until it is determined that the moving object does not exist;” (Jeong, Para. [0205] discloses; “The A/V recording and communication doorbell 130, however, may not begin recording and/or streaming video to the user's client device 800 unless and until a moving object enters one of the intrusion zones 402. The recording and/or streaming may continue until the moving object exits the intrusion zone 402 it earlier entered.” and Jeong, Para. [0155] discloses; “FIG. 2 is a flowchart illustrating a process for streaming and storing A/V content from an A/V recording and communication doorbell system according to various aspects of the present disclosure.”) “and a step of detecting and tracking the moving object in the streaming video stored in the file.” (Jeong, Para. [0008] discloses; “Some of the present embodiments solve these problems by tracking an object and streaming video footage for only about as long as the object that caused motion detection remains within the field of view.” and Jeong, Para. [0155] discloses; “FIG. 2 is a flowchart illustrating a process for streaming and storing A/V content from an A/V recording and communication doorbell system according to various aspects of the present disclosure.”)
Jeong does not disclose all of the limitations in the same embodiment, however it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the embodiments of Jeong since it is suggested by Jeong (Jeong, Para. [0259] discloses; “The above description presents the best mode contemplated for carrying out the present embodiments, and of the manner and process of practicing them, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which they pertain to practice these embodiments. The present embodiments are, however, susceptible to modifications and alternate constructions from those discussed above that are fully equivalent. Consequently, the present invention is not limited to the particular embodiments disclosed. On the contrary, the present invention covers all modifications and alternate constructions coming within the spirit and scope of the present disclosure. For example, the steps in the processes described herein need not be performed in the same order as they have been presented, and may be performed in any order(s). Further, steps that have been presented as being performed separately may in alternative embodiments be performed concurrently. Likewise, steps that have been presented as being performed concurrently may in alternative embodiments be performed separately.”) As disclosed by Jeong, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the different embodiments of Jeong as the combinations would yield predictable and similar results. This motivation to combine the embodiments of Jeong applies to the dependent claims as well.
Claim 10 recites a system with elements corresponding to the steps recited in Claim 1. Therefore, the recited elements of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim. Finally, Jeong discloses, “a communication unit configured to receive a streaming video;” (Jeong, Abstract discloses; “stream the image data to a client device using the communication module”)
Regarding claim 11, Jeong teaches, “A real-time object tracking method comprising: a step of generating a streaming video;” (Jeong, Para. [0008] discloses; “Still another aspect of the present embodiments includes the realization that, in current A/V recording and communication devices, such as doorbell systems, other than the present embodiments, even if motion detection is falsely triggered, or if an object that caused motion detection is no longer within the field of view, the A/V recording and communication device may unnecessarily continue to record and/or stream video footage.”) “a step of determining whether a moving object exists in a streaming video;” (Jeong, Abstract discloses; “In one embodiment, an audio/video (A/V) recording and communication device is provided, comprising: a camera configured to capture image data of an object within a field of view; a communication module; and a processing module comprising: a processor; and a motion detection application which configures the processor to: detect motion of the object; capture image data of the object; track the object within the field of view;”) “a step of, when it is determined that the moving object exists, recording the streaming video and storing in a file until it is determined that the moving object does not exist;” (Jeong, Para. [0205] discloses; “The A/V recording and communication doorbell 130, however, may not begin recording and/or streaming video to the user's client device 800 unless and until a moving object enters one of the intrusion zones 402. The recording and/or streaming may continue until the moving object exits the intrusion zone 402 it earlier entered.” and Jeong, Para. [0155] discloses; “FIG. 2 is a flowchart illustrating a process for streaming and storing A/V content from an A/V recording and communication doorbell system according to various aspects of the present disclosure.”) “and a step of detecting and tracking the moving object in the streaming video stored in the file.” (Jeong, Para. [0008] discloses; “Some of the present embodiments solve these problems by tracking an object and streaming video footage for only about as long as the object that caused motion detection remains within the field of view.” and Jeong, Para. [0155] discloses; “FIG. 2 is a flowchart illustrating a process for streaming and storing A/V content from an A/V recording and communication doorbell system according to various aspects of the present disclosure.”)
Claims 2, 3, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Changsoo Jeong (US 2018/0192009 A1), in view of Kevin Tavares (US 2018/0293863 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Jeong does not explicitly teach, “The real-time object tracking method of claim 1, wherein the step of determining comprises determining whether the moving object exists through a pixel difference between a current frame and a previous frame of the streaming video.” Since Jeong does not explicitly disclose this limitation, Examiner relies on the teachings of Tavares in an analogous field of endeavor. Specifically, Tavares teaches, “The real-time object tracking method of claim 1, wherein the step of determining comprises determining whether the moving object exists through a pixel difference between a current frame and a previous frame of the streaming video.” (Tavares, Para. [0120] discloses; “For example, the processor 162 (and/or a separate camera processor) may receive inputs of video frames from the camera 104, compare pixel differences between successive frames, and, if the pixel differences are substantial (such as being greater than one or more thresholds), determine that the pixel differences are indicative of motion within the field of view of the camera 104.”)
Jeong and Tavares are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of object detection and object tracking. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jeong to incorporate the teachings of Tavares in order to determine movement based on a pixel value difference. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the previously described method of Jeong with the teachings of Tavares to determine the smallest amount of motion by basing the determination on a pixel level. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to combine Jeong and Tavares to obtain the invention of claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Jeong and Tavares teaches, “The real-time object tracking method of claim 2, wherein the step of determining comprises: when the pixel difference is less than a threshold value, determining that the moving object does not exist;” (Tavares, Para. [0120] discloses; “For example, the processor 162 (and/or a separate camera processor) may receive inputs of video frames from the camera 104, compare pixel differences between successive frames, and, if the pixel differences are substantial (such as being greater than one or more thresholds), determine that the pixel differences are indicative of motion within the field of view of the camera 104.” Examiner interprets this disclosure to specify that a moving object exists if there is a difference in pixel values between frames, and if there is no difference, there would be no detection of a moving object (i.e. not existing).) “and when the pixel difference is greater than or equal to the threshold value, determining that the moving object exists.” (Tavares, Para. [0120] discloses; “For example, the processor 162 (and/or a separate camera processor) may receive inputs of video frames from the camera 104, compare pixel differences between successive frames, and, if the pixel differences are substantial (such as being greater than one or more thresholds), determine that the pixel differences are indicative of motion within the field of view of the camera 104.”) The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Jeong and Tavares references presented in the rejection of claim 2, apply to claim 3 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the method recited in claim 3 is met by Jeong and Tavares.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Jeong and Tavares teaches, “The real-time object tracking method of claim 1, wherein the step of recording comprises, when a difference between a most recent time at which it is determined that the moving object exists and a current time exceeds a defined time, determining that the moving object which has existed does not exist” (Jeong, Para. [0238] discloses; “If and when the object that caused the motion detection is no longer detected in the field of view, then the process may include starting (block B456) a timer 449 and searching the field of view for the object. If the object is found (block B458), then the process may repeat blocks B454 and B452 until the object that caused the motion detection is no longer detected in the field of view. If the object is not found (block B458), then the process may determine (block B460) whether the timer 449 has expired by reaching and/or exceeding a predetermined threshold time.”)
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Changsoo Jeong (US 2018/0192009 A1), in view of Kevin Tavares (US 2018/0293863 A1), in further view of Chang et al. (US 2009/0310822 A1).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Jeong and Tavares does not explicitly teach, “The real-time object tracking method of claim 3, wherein the threshold value is variable based on a moving object tracking failure rate.” Since the combination of Jeong and Tavares does not explicitly disclose this limitation, Examiner relies on the teachings of Chang in an analogous field of endeavor. Specifically, Chang teaches, “The real-time object tracking method of claim 3, wherein the threshold value is variable based on a moving object tracking failure rate” (Chang, Para. [0009] discloses; “False alarm is an annoying problem for the above-described object segmentation methods since only pixel connection or pixel change is considered. Local change such as flash or shadow affects the object segmentation very much. Besides, noise is probably considered as a foreground object. These accidental factors trigger and increase false alarms. These problems are sometimes overcome by adjusting the threshold value or sensitivity. The determination of the threshold value or sensitivity is always in a dilemma.” Examiner interprets the false alarm to be a failure of the object detection unit, thus the variable threshold of Chang is based on the false alarm/failure.)
Jeong, Tavares, and Chang are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of object detection and object tracking. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jeong and Tavares to incorporate the teachings of Chang in order to have a variable threshold based on an object tracking failure rate. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the previously described method of Jeong and Tavares with the teachings of Chang to change the threshold value based on the imaging environment/noise and how well the device can detect and track an object. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to combine Jeong, Tavares, and Chang to obtain the invention of claim 4.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Changsoo Jeong (US 2018/0192009 A1), in view of Kevin Tavares (US 2018/0293863 A1), in further view of Liu et al. (US 2019/0147279 A1).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Jeong and Tavares does not explicitly teach, “The real-time object tracking method of claim 3, wherein the pixel difference is a mean squared error (MSE) or a running Gaussian average (RGA).” Since the combination of Jeong and Tavares does not explicitly disclose this limitation, Examiner relies on the teachings of Liu in an analogous field of endeavor. Specifically, Liu teaches, “The real-time object tracking method of claim 3, wherein the pixel difference is a mean squared error (MSE) or a running Gaussian average (RGA).” (Liu Para. [0059] discloses; “Pixel difference with respect to the background frame is calculated and squared for each frame, and the MSE is saved in one of two arrays”)
Jeong, Tavares, and Liu are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of object detection and object tracking. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jeong and Tavares to incorporate the teachings of Liu in order to determine the pixel difference by mean squared error. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the previously described method of Jeong and Tavares with the teachings of Liu to easily determine if there is a difference between two pixel values. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to combine Jeong, Tavares, and Liu to obtain the invention of claim 5.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Changsoo Jeong (US 2018/0192009 A1), in view of Kevin Tavares (US 2018/0293863 A1), in further view of Zhu et al. (CN 115119071 A).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Jeong and Tavares teaches, “The real-time object tracking method of claim 6, wherein, at the step of recording, information on a camera that makes the video, (Jeong, Para. [0146] discloses; “The camera 102 may comprise, for example, a high definition (HD) video camera, such as one capable of capturing video images at an image display resolution of 720p or better.” Jeong discloses this camera information, and adding it to a file name is merely a design choice.) The combination of Jeong and Tavares does not explicitly teach, “a recording start time, and a recording duration are included in a name of the file.” Since the combination of Jeong and Tavares does not explicitly disclose these limitations, Examiner relies on the teachings of Zhu in an analogous field of endeavor. Specifically, Zhu teaches, “The real-time object tracking method of claim 6, wherein, at the step of recording, information on a camera that makes the video, a recording start time, and a recording duration are included in a name of the file.” (Zhu, Page 2, Para. 4 discloses; “the first image is a frame image in the video to be processed in the first time period, the starting time of the first time period is the starting time of the video to be processed, the time length of the first time period is less than the first time length threshold value” Zhu discloses the timing information, and adding it to a file name is merely a design choice.)
Jeong, Tavares, and Zhu are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of object detection and object tracking. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jeong and Tavares to incorporate the teachings of Zhu in order to include camera and timing information in the file name. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the previously described method of Jeong and Tavares with the teachings of Zhu to ensure the file name is descriptive of the video in the file. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to combine Jeong, Tavares, and Zhu to obtain the invention of claim 7.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Changsoo Jeong (US 2018/0192009 A1), in view of Ramakrishnan et al. (US 2021/0331695 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Jeong does not explicitly teach, “The real-time object tracking method of claim 1, wherein, at the step of recording, the files are stored in a queue in the order that the files are generated, and wherein the step of detecting and tracking comprises processing the files stored in the queue in sequence when there is no occupation of computing resources.” Since Jeong does not explicitly disclose these limitations, Examiner relies on the teachings of Ramakrishnan in an analogous field of endeavor. Specifically, Ramakrishnan teaches, “The real-time object tracking method of claim 1, wherein, at the step of recording, the files are stored in a queue in the order that the files are generated, and wherein the step of detecting and tracking comprises processing the files stored in the queue in sequence when there is no occupation of computing resources.” (Ramakrishnan, Para. [0039] discloses; “Regardless, the measurements from all of the sensors are stored in the same queue from which each measurement is processed in the order they come into the queue.” Examiner interprets this disclosure to teach storing videos in a queue based on when they are added to the queue. It also teaches processing the videos in the same order. It would be obvious to combine this with the object detecting and tracking of Jeong.)
Jeong and Ramakrishnan are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of object detection and object tracking. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jeong to incorporate the teachings of Ramakrishnan in order to store the video files in a queue, and process them in temporal order. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the previously described method of Jeong with the teachings of Ramakrishnan to store and process the video files in the time-order that they were taken. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to combine Jeong and Ramakrishnan to obtain the invention of claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Jeong and Ramakrishnan teaches, “The real-time object tracking method of claim 8, wherein the step of detecting and tracking comprises detecting and tracking the moving object by using a deep learning-based artificial neural network.” (Ramakrishnan, Para. [0063] discloses; “The deep learning model 140 may include, in addition to those mathematical functions and processes described above, techniques such as k-nearest neighbor (KNN), logistic regression, support vector machines or networks (SVM), and one or more neural networks as noted above, such as a convolutional neural network (CNN), a fully convolutional neural network (FCN), or a Recurrent Neural Network (RNN). Regardless, the use of artificial intelligence in the framework 100 of an embodiment of the present disclosure enhances the utility of the detection and tracking functions by automatically and heuristically identifying pixel attributes such as shapes, brightness and groupings, using mathematical relationships or other means for constructing relationships between data points in information obtained from camera 112, radar 114, and LiDar 116, and other sensors where applicable, to accurately detect, identify, and track objects 104.”) The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Jeong and Ramakrishnan references presented in the rejection of claim 8, apply to claim 9 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the method recited in claim 9 is met by Jeong and Ramakrishnan.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN M. OAKES whose telephone number is (571)272-9379. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am-5pm.
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, Amandeep Saini can be reached at (571) 272-3382. 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.
/JUSTIN M OAKES/Examiner, Art Unit 2662
/Siamak Harandi/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2662
Prosecution Insights