.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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a mental process involving identifying subjects in an image. With respect to analysis of independent device Claim 1:
Step 1:
Regarding Step 1, the instant claim is directed to a device; and therefore, the claim is directed to one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One:
With regard to 2A, Prong One, This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim "recites" a judicial exception when the judicial exception is "set forth" or "described" in the claim. Representative claims recite: (1) “detect the object from the acquired image" and (2) "determine whether a portion of a first bounding box of the detected object is located within a predetermined region of the acquired image or whether a portion of the first bounding box is outside a frame boundary of the acquired image" as well as (3) “updating the first bounding box to a second based on [said determining]” these limitations in claim one, as well as those related listed below when addressing subsequent claims 2-15 recite an abstract idea, such as a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations by a person who is identifying a traffic object, a concept performed by a human through observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion. Limitation 2 recites the making a determination based on whether the bounding box is in the predetermined region or is getting cut out of the frame. This is an action that can be performed by a human without needing a computer. Additionally limitation 1 also is directed to a mental process, as a human can detect an object from an acquired image. Limitation 3 recites updating the bounding box, and although this is something done using a computer, this action can be done manually, by simply re-creating a bounding box. The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer (See Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 216, 110 USPQ2d at 1980 and See MPEP section 2106.04(a)(2) section III under mental processes, which states that a claim that requires a computer may still recite a mental process). Limitations 1-3 individually and in combination fall under the grouping of abstract idea mental processes for monitoring and determination (evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion of a viewer to determine if an object is present).
Step 2A, Prong Two:
This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception, distinct from the exception itself. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any 'additional elements' recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those 'additional elements' individually and in combination (weighed against the exception) to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. In the instant case, the additional limitations are "an image sensor configured to acquire an image around a road” and "a processer configured to detect" . The recited circuitry of the processer and sensor in independent Claim 1 are simply regarded as a generic computing component as they fail to integrate the components in a meaningful way beyond using them to apply a mental or manual process of detecting an object/ region or updating a bounding box (See MPEP 2106.05 (g) as the acquiring of the data is necessary pre-solution activity and see MPEP 2106.05 (f) and MPEP 2106.05(h) as the sensor and processer is considered generic hardware). The claim as recited simply requires applying the mental process of identifying objects and updating a bounding box. Therefore, overall, the additional limitations do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception as an indication of integration of the judicial exception into a practical application. (See MPEP 2106.4(d) which discusses what is sufficient for improvement).
An improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a);
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2);
Implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b);
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(c); and
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e).
The courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application:
Merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f);
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Accordingly, both Claims 1 and 12 are directed to an abstract idea. The above prong 2 analysis also applies to additional circuity elements that are further described below in claim 10-11, and 14-15 which are directed to a transceiver that send messages that reflect the determinations made from analysis.
Step 2B:
Because the claim fails under Step 2A, the claim is further evaluated under Step 2B. The claim herein does 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 in the claim are merely insignificant extra-solution activities and a generic computing component, which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05 (f)). The additional step of acquiring data using a sensor is considered Well-Understood, Routine, and Conventional activity, even in combination with the other recited elements (See TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48 where generic data collection and analysis were considered well-understood routine and conventional activity). Therefore, under MPEP 2106.05 (d). Therefore, Claim 1 and 12 are not patent eligible.
In addition, with regard to dependent claims 2- 15 viewed individually, these additional elements, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations as an abstract idea (mental processes), and 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.
Regarding claim 2:
Step 2A, Prong Two:
In this instance, the additional limitation "wherein the predetermined region includes a region in which at least a portion of the detected object is not detected within the acquired image due to being obscured by another stationary object" does not add significantly more to the abstract idea beyond further describing the predetermined region. Therefore, overall, the additional limitations do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception as an indication of integration of the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
The claim herein does 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 in the claim are merely insignificant extra-solution activities and generic computing components, which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, Claim 2 is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 3:
Step 2A, Prong Two:
In this instance, the additional limitation "the processor is configured to generate the second bounding box based on information on a width and height of the bounding box of the object, which are pre-acquired, and information on the first bounding box" does not add significantly more to the abstract idea beyond further describing features used in the generation of the bounding boxes. Therefore, overall, the additional limitations do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception as an indication of integration of the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
The claim herein does 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 in the claim are merely insignificant extra-solution activities and generic computing components, which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, Claim 3 and similar claim 13 is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 4:
Sep 2A, Prong One:
With regard to 2A, Prong One recites the abstract ideas of Claim 1. Therefore the limitation recites a mental process, additionally the claim recites “acquiring coordinates of the second bounding box based on the pre-acquired width and height of the bounding box of the object with respect to a reference edge of the first bounding box” which would be considered a mathematical operation, therefore the claim falls under the abstract idea category for both mental process and mathematical calculations.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
In this instance, the additional limitation "generating the second bounding box comprises acquiring coordinates of the second bounding box based on the pre-acquired width and height of the bounding box of the object with respect to a reference edge of the first bounding box not located within the predetermined region" does not add significantly more to the abstract idea beyond further describing features used in the generation of the bounding boxes. Therefore, overall, the additional limitations do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception as an indication of integration of the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
The claim herein does 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 in the claim are merely insignificant extra-solution activities and generic computing components, which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, Claim 4 is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 5:
Step 2A, Prong Two:
In this instance, the additional limitations "wherein the reference edge is located diagonally to one edge selected from among edges of the first bounding box located within the predetermined region" and “wherein the selected edge of the first bounding box is an edge whose length within the predetermined region, when connected to a neighboring edge outside the predetermined region, is the longest among the edges of the first bounding box located within the predetermined region” do not add significantly more to the abstract idea beyond further describing features used in the generation of the bounding boxes. Therefore, overall, the additional limitations do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception as an indication of integration of the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
The claim herein does 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 in the claim are merely insignificant extra-solution activities and generic computing components, which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, Claim 5 is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 6:
Step 2A, Prong One:
With regard to 2A, Prong One recites the abstract ideas of Claim 1. Therefore the limitation recites a mental process, additionally the claim recites “acquiring coordinates of the second bounding box based on the pre-acquired width and height of the bounding box of the object with respect to a reference edge of the first bounding box” and “generating the second bounding box comprises acquiring coordinates of the second bounding box based on the pre-acquired width and height of the bounding box of the object with respect to a reference edge of the first bounding box located within the frame boundary of the acquired image” which would be considered a mathematical operation, therefore the claim falls under the abstract idea category for both mental process and mathematical calculations.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
In this instance, the additional limitations do not add significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore, overall, the additional limitations do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception as an indication of integration of the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
The claim herein does 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 in the claim are merely insignificant extra-solution activities and generic computing components, which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, Claim 6 is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 7:
Step 2A, Prong Two:
In this instance, the additional limitation "wherein a center point of the second bounding box is different from a center point of the first bounding box, or wherein at least one of four edges of the second bounding box is different from four edges of the first bounding box" does not add significantly more to the abstract idea beyond further describing features used in the generation of the bounding boxes. Therefore, overall, the additional limitations do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception as an indication of integration of the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
The claim herein does 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 in the claim are merely insignificant extra-solution activities and generic computing components, which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, Claim 7 is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 8:
Step 2A, Prong Two:
In this instance, the additional limitation "wherein the processor is configured to determine a current state value of the object by combining a most recent position prediction state value of the object and a position measurement value of the object based on information on the second bounding box" and “wherein the current state value of the object is used to determine a next position prediction state value” does not add significantly more to the abstract idea beyond making a determination based on the acquired information. Therefore, overall, the additional limitations do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception as an indication of integration of the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
The claim herein does 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 in the claim are merely insignificant extra-solution activities and generic computing components, which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, Claim 8 is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 9:
Step 2A, Prong Two:
In this instance, the additional limitation "wherein the processor is configured to determine a current state value of the object based on information on coordinates of a center point of the second bounding box and information on a width and height of the second bounding box" does not add significantly more to the abstract idea beyond making a determination based on the acquired information. Therefore, overall, the additional limitations do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception as an indication of integration of the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
The claim herein does 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 in the claim are merely insignificant extra-solution activities and generic computing components, which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, Claim 9 is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 10:
Step 2A, Prong Two:
In this instance, the additional limitations "transmit a traffic safety-related message, and wherein the processor is configured to control the transceiver to transmit the traffic safety-related message to a user” do not add significantly more to the abstract idea beyond further describing that the information is output. Therefore, overall, the additional limitations do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception as an indication of integration of the judicial exception into a practical application (See 2106.05(g)).
Step 2B:
The claim herein Includes the additional limitation of a transceiver, however because as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into practical application, the additional elements in the claim are merely insignificant extra-solution activities and generic computing components, which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f) and MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Therefore, Claim 10 and similar claim 14 is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 11:
Step 2A, Prong Two:
In this instance, the additional limitations "transmit information on the object, and wherein the processor is configured to control the transceiver to transmit information on a position corresponding to the second bounding box or information on a position corresponding to a position prediction state value based on the second bounding box to a server” do not add significantly more to the abstract idea beyond further describing that the information is output. Therefore, overall, the additional limitations do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception as an indication of integration of the judicial exception into a practical application (See 2106.05(g)).
Step 2B:
The claim herein Includes the additional limitation of a transceiver, however because as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into practical application, the additional elements in the claim are merely insignificant extra-solution activities and generic computing components, which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f) and MPEP 2106.05(h)). Therefore, Claim 11 and similar claim 15 is not patent eligible.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 7, 8, 9, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (2) as being anticipated by US11200434 B2 (hereinafter referred to as Serafin).
Regarding claim 1, Serafin teaches a device configured to estimate a position of an object, the device comprising: an image sensor configured to acquire an image around a road [See Col 6 Para 5 where the object tracking module detects objects in the surrounding environment of vehicle using a sensor module];
PNG
media_image1.png
151
1050
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and a processor configured to detect the object from the acquired image, wherein the processor is configured to: determine whether a portion of a first bounding box of the detected object is located within a predetermined region of the acquired image [See Col 1 Para 5 where bounding boxes are placed around the tracked objects. The predetermined region can be reasonably interpreted as a region where an object is occluded. Therefore, see Col 3 Para 1 where a portion of the bounding box is to be detected in the predetermined region when part of the detected object is obscured];
PNG
media_image2.png
151
1179
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
374
1062
media_image3.png
Greyscale
and update the first bounding box to a second bounding box based on that the portion of the first bounding box is located within the predetermined region of the acquired image [See Col 1 Para 5 above where the bounding box can be expanded to a larger size. Additionally see Col 1 Para 3 where occluding portions of the target object make it difficult to maintain a consistent bounding box, therefore the bounding box is expanded as needed to accurately determine the pose as discussed in Col 3 Para 1 ].
PNG
media_image4.png
80
1308
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim 12 is similarly analyzed to claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Serafin teaches the device of claim 1, and further teaches that the processor is configured to generate the second bounding box based on information on a width and height of the bounding box of the object, which are pre-acquired, and information on the first bounding box [see Serafin Col 4 para 2 where the second bounding box (the expanded bounding box) represents the largest calculated bounding box, indicating its generated using the width and height of the detected object, as well as information from the first bounding box such as the centroid].
PNG
media_image5.png
168
1167
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim 13 is similarly analyzed to claim 3.
Regarding claim 7, Serafin teaches the device of claim 3, wherein at least one of four edges of the second bounding box is different from four edges of the first bounding box [See also Col 4 Para 4, where the expansion of the second bounding box occurs is a direction d, indicating that at least one of the four edges is different from the first bounding box].
PNG
media_image6.png
232
1031
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Serafin teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to determine a current state value of the object by combining a most recent position prediction state value of the object and a position measurement value of the object based on information on the second bounding box [See Col 3 Para 3 where the smoothing estimates the state of the tracked object using both the current data, and the history of states of the tracked object (indicating the second bounding box)],
PNG
media_image7.png
146
1058
media_image7.png
Greyscale
wherein the current state value of the object is used to determine a next position prediction state value [See Col 3 Para 3 where the filtering operation estimates the most recent state of an object using the recent observations. See also Claim 7 where the object tracking (which detects the current state value of the object) is determined for each pose. The object heading vector is used to determine which direction the object is moving, determining the next position prediction state value].
PNG
media_image8.png
182
1068
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Serafin teaches the device of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the processor is configured to determine a current state value of the object based on information on coordinates of a center point of the second bounding box and information on a width and height of the second bounding box [See Col 1 Para 4 of Serafin where the state of an object is estimated as the object is being tracked, according to the center of the expanded bounding box].
PNG
media_image9.png
165
1055
media_image9.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim 4, 6, 10, 11, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Serafin.
Regarding claim 4, Serafin teaches the device of claim 3 and further teaches wherein generating the second bounding box comprises acquiring coordinates of the second bounding box based on the pre-acquired width and height of the bounding box of the object [See above Col 4 para 2].
In most embodiments Serafin teaches using a centroid as an anchor point rather than a reference edge.
However, in some embodiments [See Col 3 Line 24 (above in Col 3 para 1)] the centroid may not be the ideal anchor point, as the ideal anchor point should be a fixed-point relative to the true shape of the object being tracked (i.e. a reference edge).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to choose the anchor point as a reference edge of the object where the object is visible in the first bounding box (i.e. not in the predetermined region) in order to accurately obtain the size of the object and efficiently track the object.
Regarding claim 6, Serafin teaches wherein generating the second bounding box comprises acquiring coordinates of the second bounding box based on the pre-acquired width and height of the bounding box of the object with respect to a reference edge of the first bounding box located within the frame boundary of the acquired image [See above Col 4 Para 2 of Serafin which teaches that the expanded bounding box uses the largest bounding box of the point cloud data with respect to the anchor point which is within the frame of the image].
Regarding claim 10, Serafin teaches the device of claim 1,
In one configuration, further teaches the device comprising a transceiver configured to transmit a traffic safety-related message, and wherein the processor is configured to control the transceiver to transmit the traffic safety-related message to a user [See Col 5 line 60-66 where the data captured by the sensor (traffic safety related message) is transmitted by the transceiver in communication to the car (where the user is)].
PNG
media_image10.png
282
1078
media_image10.png
Greyscale
or user terminal within a predetermined distance from a position corresponding to the second bounding box [see Col 10 Para 2 where the device is could have a user terminal as storage, the user terminal can provide the storage mean for the device indicating that the User terminal is on the user vehicle, indicating that the tracked object (Second bounding box) is at a predetermined distance].
PNG
media_image11.png
171
1078
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to combine the device of Serafin with the embodiment of transmitting information to a user or user terminal, The motivation to combine would be to improve the functionality of the invention as discussed in Col 7 Para 5.
PNG
media_image12.png
158
1072
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Claim 14 is similarly analyzed to claim 10.
Regarding claim 11, Serafin teaches the device of claim 1,
In one configuration, Serafin further teaches the device comprising a transceiver configured to transmit information on the object, and wherein the processor is configured to control the transceiver to transmit information on a position corresponding to the second bounding box or information on a position corresponding to a position prediction state value based on the second bounding box to a server [See Column 5 Lines 27-30 were the transceiver transmits the information of the object tracking module to a server, this includes both position of the tracked object (second bounding box) and the position prediction state value of the bounding box (velocity/ direction of the object)].
PNG
media_image13.png
145
1069
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Claim 15 is similarly analyzed to claim 11.
Claim 2, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Serafin in view of “Visual Tracking of Occluded and Unresolved Objects” (hereinafter referred to as reference 1).
Regarding Claim 2, Serafin teaches the device of claim one, as well as a predetermined region where at least a portion of the detected object is not detected within the acquired image [see Col 3 Para 1 above where portions of the detected object can be occluded].
PNG
media_image3.png
374
1062
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Serafin does not explicitly teach that the object is obscured by a stationary object. Reference 1 teaches that objects can be obscured by a tree [See the first image of reference 1 on page 3 where a tree obscures parts of the moving target]
PNG
media_image14.png
1298
1143
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to combine the bounding boxes of Serafin used for tracking while accounting for stationary objects like the trees in Reference 1. The Motivation to combine is to more accurately detect objects in a traffic scene, where stationary objects such as buildings, trees, parked cars and signs are abundant.
Regarding claim 5, Serafin teaches the device of claim 4, as well as a reference edge (anchor point, see above). Serafin also teaches that the anchor point can be a center point of the frame, indicating that the center could be determined by calculating the midpoint of the diagonal of the bounding box [Col 3 Para 1 above].
Additionally reference one teaches wherein the reference edge is located diagonally to one edge selected from among edges of the first bounding box located within the predetermined region [See the Detection History function on page 4 and 5 where the centroid is used as the reference edge, the centroid is determined through the diagonal of the frame, therefore it is also diagonal to any chosen edge. The line diag(100,100), which measures the centroid noise indicates that there is uncertainty in the vertical and horizontal direction of the centroid, this accounts for regions of the image where the object may be occluded such as the predetermined region],
PNG
media_image15.png
582
715
media_image15.png
Greyscale
and wherein the selected edge of the first bounding box is an edge whose length within the predetermined region, when connected to a neighboring edge outside the predetermined region, is the longest among the edges of the first bounding box located within the predetermined region [see image one of Reference 1 above, where the right edge of the bounding box at the bottom left of the image, is one of the longest edges, and is in the predetermined region (obscured by a tree), This edge is also connected to a neighboring edge (bottom edge) which is not in the predetermined region (is not obscured)].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to combine the anchor point of Serafin with the detection of the longest edge in an obscured region that neighbors an edge that is not obscured, to better track an object in a traffic scene.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANUSHA KASHYAPA whose telephone number is (571)272-8766. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-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, Chan Park can be reached at (571) 272-7409. 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.
/ANUSHA KASHYAPA/ Examiner, Art Unit 2669 /CHAN S PARK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2669
Prosecution Insights