DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. Claims 1-12 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
US20110228094
Pars. 57-62
Search for people across multiple camera videos using watch lists, facial recognition and clothing recognition.
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, 5, and 9 are objected to because “outputting a result of search to a display” should be amended to --outputting a result of a search to a display--.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the extraneous ‘0’ in “instructions0”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 19/185,428 (‘428 reference application), in view of Schneiderman et al., Pub. No.: US 20080080743 A1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown below. This is a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
All limitations and elements in claims 1-12 of the instant application are found in claims 1-20 of the ‘428 reference application except for “wherein the result of search includes a thumbnail of the second video”. (Note: a "system" and "apparatus" have the same scope as they share the same statutory category of invention, and “detect an action” as claimed in instant claims 3, 7 and 11 is encompassed by the ‘428 reference application’s independent claims requirement of detection of events and/or objects in video, which were not previously present in frames of the video being analyzed.)
However, Schneiderman, in the field of information retrieval teaches results of search including thumbnails of second videos (see at least pars. 50-55.)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention with the teachings of the ‘428 reference application and Schneiderman before them, to modify the second part of video provided to the operator to include thumbnails thereof as taught by Schneiderman. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so because the use of thumbnails in the ‘428 reference application would allow for an index that provides direct navigation and access to relevant sections of video, thus eliminating the need for manually locating a video segment that may be of interest (see Schneiderman at least pars. 53.)
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-12 are also provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 19/185,498 (‘498 reference application), in view of Schneiderman et al., Pub. No.: US 20080080743 A1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown below. This is a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
All limitations and elements in claims 1-12 of the instant application are found in claims 1-20 of the ‘498 reference application except for “outputting a result of a search to a display” and “wherein the result of search includes a thumbnail of the second video”. (Note: a "system" and "apparatus" have the same scope as they share the same statutory category of invention, and “detect an action” as claimed in instant claims 3, 7 and 11 is encompassed by the ‘498 reference application’s independent claims requirement of detection of presence of a person, face, and/or clothing, which were not previously seen in frames of the video being analyzed.)
However, Schneiderman, in the field of information retrieval teaches outputting a result of a search to a display, the results of a search including thumbnails of second videos (see at least pars. 50-55.)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention with the teachings of the ‘498 reference application and Schneiderman before them, to output results of the search on a display that includes thumbnails of resulting images as taught by Schneiderman. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so because the use of thumbnails in the ‘498 reference application would allow for an index that provides direct navigation and access to relevant sections of video, as part of search results outputted on a display, thus eliminating the need for manually locating a video segment that may be of interest (see Schneiderman at least pars. 53.)
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim 1-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. US 12315260 B2 (‘260 patent) in view of Schneiderman et al., Pub. No.: US 20080080743 A1. Claim 1-12 are also rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6, and 11 of U.S. Patent No. US 12183083 B2 (‘083 patent) in view of Schneiderman et al., Pub. No.: US 20080080743 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 1-12 of the instant application are found in the above-mentioned independent claims of the ‘260 and ‘083 patents except for “first camera”, “second camera”, “outputting a result of a search to a display” and “wherein the result of search includes a thumbnail of the second video”. However, Schneiderman, in the field of information retrieval teaches outputting a result of a search to a display, the results of a search including thumbnails of second videos from multiple cameras (see at least pars. 50-55.)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention with the teachings of either one of the ‘260 and ‘083 patents with Schneiderman, to analyze video from more than one camera, and output results of the search on a display that includes thumbnails of resulting images as taught by Schneiderman. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so because the use of thumbnails in the ‘260 and ‘083 patents would allow for an index that provides direct navigation and access to relevant sections of video content captured from multiple cameras, as part of search results outputted on a display, thus eliminating the need for manually locating a video segment that may be of interest (see Schneiderman at least pars. 53.)
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1-12 are directed to one of the eligible categories of subject matter.
With respect to independent claims 1, 5, 9, the searching, analyzing, detect cover performance of the limitations manually and/or in the mind (mental processes abstract idea). The receiving, outputting, stored 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 claimed cameras). 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 4, 8, 12 the executed covers performance of the limitations manually and/or in the mind (mental processes abstract idea). The outputting is 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 2, 3, 6, 7, 10, 11 the analyzing 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.
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 1-12 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Schneiderman et al., Pub. No.: US 20080080743 A1, hereinafter Schneiderman.
As per claim 1, Schneiderman discloses An information processing method comprising:
receiving information for searching a video by analyzing a first video captured by a first camera (pars. 6, 8, 61); and
outputting a result of search to a display, the search being configured to detect a second video captured by a second camera from a storage based on the information for searching a video (pars. 53-54),
wherein the information for searching a video is stored in a database (see at least pars. 15, 40, 46, 61),
wherein the result of search includes a thumbnail of the second video (see at least pars. 50-55), and
wherein the second camera is different from the first camera (pars. 6, 52, 54, 57).
As per claim 2, Schneiderman discloses the information processing method according to claim 1, further comprises: analyzing the first video to detect an object in the first video (pars. 8, 14, 41, 60).
As per claim 3, Schneiderman discloses The information processing method according to claim 1, further comprises: analyzing the first video to detect an action in the first video (pars. 14, 15, 28, 48, 49, 57-61).
As per claim 4, Schneiderman discloses The information processing method according to claim 1, wherein the outputting the result of search is executed in a case where the information is related to a predetermined event (see rejection of claims 1, 3 and pars. 6, 48).
As per claims 5-12, they are analogous to claims 1-4 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