DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. Claims 1-20 have been examined and are pending.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of prior-filed applications under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. The present application is a continuation application of Ser. No. 18/229,350.
Pertinent Prior Art
Prior art that is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure but not currently relied upon:
KR101215948
Abstract
Multi-camera facial recognition and tracking of registered persons including extracting and comparing clothing features
US20080080743
Pars. 38-57
Search for person specific video segments from videos of multiple cameras to track persons path using time indexes
US7450735
Fig.’s 2B-3
Multi-camera tracking using time interval information to match persons as they appear in different cameras
US20020067258
Pars. 32-34
Time interval-based video surveillance using facial detection
US20030107649
Pars. 7-8
Color and texture-based people trajectory tracking
US20040143602
Pars. 182-185
Tracking people across multiple cameras
US20070039030
Pars. 57-63
Camera to camera person tracking
US20070239683
Pars. 171-172
Searching images using person features for tracking
US20110274314
Pars. 13-19
Person trajectory tracking over cameras using clothing recognition and biometric features
US20120213490
Pars. 26, 34-54
Searching faces in video to match known faces and clothing features using time-indexed cross-camera path tracking
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are objected to because they are missing an “and” before the last limitation and because “the second part of the video” should be amended to --the second part of video--.
Claim 2 is objected to because “wherein the memory configured to” should be amended to --wherein the memory is configured to--.
Claim 4 is objected to because “wherein the processors configured to read the program instructions to” should be replaced with --wherein the one or more processors are configured to read the program instructions to further--. Claim 5 is also missing “further” before the word “determine”.
Claim 5 is object to because “the second parts of video” should be amended to --the second part of video--.
Claim 9 is objected to because “wherein the clothing features are extracted base on a table” should be amended to --wherein the clothing features are extracted based on a table--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 end with the limitation “search a video … for the clothing feature to track of the person.” It is not clear what it means to search “for the clothing feature to track of the person” – this phrase appears to be worded incorrectly. Additionally, previous limitations make it clear that captured videos of all cameras of a plurality of cameras are analyzed to detect a person and clothing, and so it is not clear what the search limitation is searching for. In other words, why search for something already known? All respective dependent claims are likewise rejected.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1-20 are directed to one of the eligible categories of subject matter.
With respect to independent claims 1, 8, 15, the analyze, detect, extract, search cover performance of the limitations manually and/or in the mind (mental processes abstract idea). The store, read limitations are recited at a high level of generality and do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea; these limitations are directed to insignificant extra solution activities. The claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the exception in a computer environment using generic computer functions or components (such as the language using face collation technology). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
With respect to dependent claim 5, 12, 19 the determine cover performance of the limitations manually and/or in the mind (mental processes abstract idea). The store are recited at a high level of generality and do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea; these limitations are directed to insignificant extra solution activities. The claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the exception in a computer environment using generic computer functions or components. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
With respect to dependent claims 4, 11, 18 the update, detect cover performance of the limitations manually and/or in the mind (mental processes abstract idea). No additional elements are recited and so the claims do not provide a practical application and are not considered to be significantly more. The claims are not eligible.
With respect to dependent claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14, 16, 17, 20 storing are recited at a high level of generality and do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea. The claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the exception in a computer environment using generic computer functions or components. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. US12315260B (‘260 patent), in view of Cheng et al., Pub. No.: US 20110228094 A1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown below.
All limitations and elements in claims 1-20 of the instant application are found in claims 1-8 of the ‘260 patent except for the table data structure, “a black list which registers persons to be detected”, “detect a person registered in the black list by using face collation technology”, and “a plurality of cameras”. However, Cheng, in the field of information retrieval teaches these limitations (pars. 23, 52, 57-58, 66-75).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention with the teachings of the ‘260 patent and Cheng before them, to modify the analyzing step to detect a person registered in a black list by using face collation technology and analyze/search videos of multiple cameras as taught by Cheng. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so because the use of black lists and multiple cameras in the ‘260 patent would allow for creating and storing subject dossiers for watch list-based face and clothing detection functionality to match with extracted clothing features of unidentified persons who may potentially be a suspect being tracked from a group of cameras in a surveillance area where the suspect is headed, to be on the lookout for the suspect (see Cheng pars. 23, 52, 57-58, 66-75).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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 –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Cheng et al., Pub. No.: US 20110228094 A1, hereinafter Cheng.
As per claim 1, Cheng discloses An information processing apparatus comprising:
a memory configured to store program instructions and a black list which registers persons to be detected (pars. 23, 57-58, 61, 68 disclose creating and storing subject dossiers for watch list-based detection functionality);
one or more processors configured to read the program instructions to:
analyze videos which are captured by a plurality of cameras to detect a person registered in the black list by using face collation technology (pars. 23, 52, 57-58; also, see pars. 66-75 for facial feature signature matched/recognized against stored dossier database),
extract clothing features of the person from a second part of video which is determined based on predetermined time difference information that designates how long is time difference between a first part of video in which a face of the person is detected and the second part of the video (pars. 67-72, 80 disclose that the subject dossiers include clothing features, and that the subject dossier stores temporal information signatures (that store a person’s location, direction, path, speed, places visited, etc.), which is time-based information, alongside clothing and facial features; par. 70 discloses using subject dossier stored clothing features, facial features and known temporal information (location, direction, path, speed, places visited, etc.) to match with extracted clothing features of unidentified persons who may potentially be a suspect being tracked from a group of cameras in a surveillance area where the suspect is headed, to be on the lookout for the suspect);
search a video captured by a second camera located near a first camera that captured the first part of video, for the clothing feature to track of the person (see rejection above and at least pars. 24, 52, 70).
As per claim 2, Cheng discloses The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the memory configured to further store a table representing a correspondence between the person as a type of event to be detected and the clothing features as a type of a target object to be tracked (pars. 57-58, 61, 65, 67-70 disclose relational database stored subject dossiers that maps person specific event detection (face recognition against watch list) to clothing features to be tracked, the dossier links the person/subject (event type) to clothing features (target object type)).
As per claim 3, Cheng discloses The information processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the table stores the time difference information (see rejection of claim 2 and at least par. 65).
As per claim 4, Cheng discloses The information processing apparatus according to Claim 3, wherein the processors configured to read the program instructions to update the time difference information stored in the table when the clothing features are detected from a third part of video (par. 61, 65 disclose collecting biometric signatures and object tracking locations, managing subject dossiers, updating the subject dossiers, etc. which includes collecting, storing and updating of “temporal information (e.g., speed, direction, location, past activities, …)” in light of “information about object (e.g., person) such as, biometric information/signatures, soft biometric information…”; Par. 70 discloses that subject dossier store clothing features, facial features and known temporal information (location, direction, path, speed, places visited, etc.)).
As per claim 5, Cheng discloses the information processing apparatus according to Claim 3, wherein the table stores two or more time differences between the first part of video and the second parts of video, and wherein the one or more processors are configured to read the program instructions to determine the second parts of video according to the time differences (see rejection of at least the extract clothing features limitation of claim 1 and note that multiple time differences information is stored and used as claimed).
As per claim 6, Cheng discloses The information processing apparatus according to Claim 3, wherein the table stores time width of the second part of video (see rejection of claim 1 including at least par. 41).
As per claim 7, Cheng discloses The information processing apparatus according to Claim 2, wherein the table stores regions in the video corresponding to the type of event (pars. 57-58, 61, 65, 67-70 disclose relational database stored subject dossiers that maps person specific event detection (face recognition against watch list) to clothing features to be tracked, the dossier links the person/subject (the type of event) to clothing features (target object type) in connection with parts or regions of video).
As per claims 8-20, they are analogous to claims above and therefore likewise rejected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYED HASAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5008. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 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, Boris Gorney can be reached at (571)270-5626. 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.
/SYED H HASAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154