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 .
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a mental process without significantly more.
Representative claim 1 recites:
“A search device comprising:
processing circuitry:
to derive, by taking each of a plurality of clusters obtained by clustering a plurality of feature values stored in a feature database as a target cluster, a threshold for the target cluster from a distribution of the feature values in the target cluster; and
to identify, by using, as a target threshold, the threshold derived for a cluster to which a search feature, which is a feature value for an image in a search request, belongs among the plurality of clusters, a feature value corresponding to the search feature from the plurality of feature values stored in the feature database.”
Claims 9 and 10 recite similar subject matter.
The claims contains mental process steps of “to derive, by taking each of a plurality of clusters obtained by clustering a plurality of feature values stored in a feature database as a target cluster, a threshold for the target cluster from a distribution of the feature values in the target cluster” and “to identify, by using, as a target threshold, the threshold derived for a cluster to which a search feature, which is a feature value for an image in a search request, belongs among the plurality of clusters, a feature value corresponding to the search feature from the plurality of feature values stored in the feature database.” The derivation and the identification steps are both mental process steps that can be performed by a human being with pen and paper or a generic computer.
The independent claims contain additional elements in the form of “processing circuitry” (claim 1) and “a non-transitory computer readable medium” (claim 10).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claimed additional elements do not appear to improve the processing of a computer, require the use of a specific machine, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or provide a technological solution to a technological problem.
The “processing circuitry” and “non-transitory computer readable medium” are recited at a high level of generality. They appear to be generic computing hardware elements. The recitation of generic hardware is little more than using a computer to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
It is noted that none of the additional elements appear to improve the processing of a computer, require the use of a specific machine, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or provide a technological solution to a technological problem. As such, none of the additional elements appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
None of the additional elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, in part or in whole.
The recitation of generic hardware of the “processing circuitry” and “non-transitory computer readable medium” is little more than using a computer to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
None of the additional elements, in part or in whole, appear to improve the processing of a computer, require the use of a particular machine, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or add a specific limitation other than what is well understood, routine, or conventional. As such, none of the additional elements appear to be, in part or as a whole, significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 2-8 are merely directed towards additional limitations that further define data types or further describe analyses that will occur. It is noted that the claimed data definitions and data analysis and extraction steps do not appear to include additional elements that incorporate the claimed subject matter into a practical application. The dependent claims also do not include additional elements that, in part or as a whole, appear to be significantly more than the abstract idea.
The “cameras” of claim 2 appear to be generic computer hardware elements and do not, on their own, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or, in part or as a whole, provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
The ”output” operation of claims 7 and 8 appear to be generic output of the result of a data analysis. Displaying an output of a data analysis by displaying the integrated extracted source data is insignificant post-solution activity and is well known (see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3)). Generic output of a data analysis does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor does generic output provide, in part or as a whole, significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1-4 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beach et al. (US Patent 11,544,505) in view of Debnath et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2021/0319226).
As to claim 1, Beach teaches a search device comprising:
processing circuitry (see Beach 26:28-44):
to derive, by taking each of a plurality of clusters obtained by clustering a plurality of feature values stored in a feature database as a target cluster, a threshold for the target cluster from a distribution of the feature values in the target cluster (see Beach 11:42-56. Beach teaches how a threshold for tightness for a cluster can be derived based on features of objects in the cluster. As noted in 4:3-45, Beach teaches a database that stores objects of interest and associated metadata including classification and identification of the object); and
Beach does not explicitly teach:
to identify, by using, as a target threshold, the threshold derived for a cluster to which a search feature, which is a feature value for an image in a search request, belongs among the plurality of clusters, a feature value corresponding to the search feature from the plurality of feature values stored in the feature database.
Debnath teaches:
to identify, by using, as a target threshold, the threshold derived for a cluster to which a search feature, which is a feature value for an image in a search request, belongs among the plurality of clusters, a feature value corresponding to the search feature from the plurality of feature values stored in the feature database (see paragraphs [0049]-[0050]. A search for a particular face image, or feature, submitted in a query may be matched to various clusters. A match is found when the search is within a similarity threshold for a cluster).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest filing date of the invention to have modified Beach by the teachings of Debnath because both references are directed towards clustering image data and because Debnath provides Beach additional utility by allowing a user to search for particular images recorded from multiple cameras to identify and track individuals. This can add utility to the system of Beach by providing different tracking and searching applications to the data identification and clustering techniques of Beach (see Debnath paragraphs [0023]-[0024]).
As to claim 2, Beach as modified teaches the search device according to claim 1, wherein
in the feature database, the plurality of feature values for a target object appearing in image data acquired by a plurality of cameras are stored (see Beach 4:3-45, which shows a database that stores objects of interest and associated metadata including classification and identification of the object),
by taking each of the plurality of cameras as a deriving target camera, the processing circuitry derives the threshold for the plurality of clusters obtained by clustering the plurality of feature values for the target object appearing in the image data acquired by the deriving target camera (see 11:42-56 and 13:48-14:3. Each cluster may have different thresholds depending on the type of object being identified and types of objects present in the cluster), and
by taking each of the plurality of cameras as a search target camera and by using, as the target threshold, the threshold for the cluster to which the search feature, which is the feature value for the image in the search request, belongs among the plurality of clusters for the search target camera, the processing circuitry identifies the feature value corresponding to the search feature from the feature values for the target object appearing in the image data acquired by the search target camera (see Debnath paragraphs [0049]-[0050]. Debnath allows one to search data from target cameras for particular search features by using cluster matching).
As to claim 3, Beach as modified by Debnath teaches the search device according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry identifies, from among the plurality of feature values, a feature value with a distance from the search feature being equal to or smaller than the target threshold (see Debnath paragraphs [0049]-[0050]).
As to claim 4, Beach as modified by Debnath teaches the search device according to claim 2, wherein the processing circuitry identifies, from among the plurality of feature values, a feature value with a distance from the search feature being equal to or smaller than the target threshold (see Debnath paragraphs [0049]-[0050]).
As to claims 9 and 10, see the rejection of claim 1.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beach et al. (US Patent 11,544,505) in view of Debnath et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2021/0319226), and further in view of Bergh et al. (US Patent 6,112,186).
As to claim 5, Beach as modified teaches the search device according to claim 3.
Beach as modified does not teach wherein the processing circuitry to calculate, by taking each of one or more feature values identified as a target feature value, similarity between the target feature value and the search feature from a value obtained by dividing the distance between the target feature value and the search feature by the target threshold used when the target feature value is identified.
Bergh teaches wherein the processing circuitry to calculate, by taking each of one or more feature values identified as a target feature value, similarity between the target feature value and the search feature from a value obtained by dividing the distance between the target feature value and the search feature by the target threshold used when the target feature value is identified (see Bergh 11:36-54. A measure of distance is ultimately divided by a threshold to determine how similar two data objects are).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest filing date of the invention to have modified Beach by the teachings of Bergh because both references are directed towards identifying similar data objects and because Bergh provides a calculation for identifying similar objects in a domain with threshold values that improve the predictive capacity of the calculation.
As to claim 6, Beach as modified teaches the search device according to claim 4.
Beach as modified wherein the processing circuitry to calculate, by taking each of one or more feature values identified as a target feature value, similarity between the target feature value and the search feature from a value obtained by dividing the distance between the target feature value and the search feature by the target threshold used when the target feature value is identified.
Bergh teaches wherein the processing circuitry to calculate, by taking each of one or more feature values identified as a target feature value, similarity between the target feature value and the search feature from a value obtained by dividing the distance between the target feature value and the search feature by the target threshold used when the target feature value is identified (see Bergh 11:36-54. A measure of distance is ultimately divided by a threshold to determine how similar two data objects are).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest filing date of the invention to have modified Beach by the teachings of Bergh because both references are directed towards identifying similar data objects and because Bergh provides a calculation for identifying similar objects in a domain with threshold values that improve the predictive capacity of the calculation.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beach et al. (US Patent 11,544,505) in view of Debnath et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2021/0319226), in view of Bergh et al. (US Patent 6,112,186), and further in view of Kawai et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2023/0185845).
As to claim 7, Beach as modified teaches the search device according to claim 5.
Beach as modified does not teach wherein the processing circuitry systematically arranges and outputs information about the one or more identified feature values in order of the similarity.
Kawai teaches wherein the processing circuitry systematically arranges and outputs information about the one or more identified feature values in order of the similarity (see Kawai paragraph [0131]. Results of a similar image query may be sorted in order of similarity).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest filing date of the invention to have modified Beach by the teachings of Kawai because both references are directed towards identifying similar images and because Kawai provides improved utility by making it easier for a user to understand which results are most similar to a query image.
As to claim 8, Beach as modified teaches the search device according to claim 6.
Beach as modified does not teach wherein the processing circuitry systematically arranges and outputs information about the one or more identified feature values in order of the similarity.
Kawai teaches wherein the processing circuitry systematically arranges and outputs information about the one or more identified feature values in order of the similarity (see Kawai paragraph [0131]. Results of a similar image query may be sorted in order of similarity).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest filing date of the invention to have modified Beach by the teachings of Kawai because both references are directed towards identifying similar images and because Kawai provides improved utility by making it easier for a user to understand which results are most similar to a query image.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES D ADAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-3938. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5:30 EST.
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, Aleksandr Kerzhner can be reached at 5712701760. 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.
/CHARLES D ADAMS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2165
Prosecution Insights