DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Following prior arts are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20150116501 A1 (McCoy)
US 20190311061 A1 (Peterson)
US 20170208355 A1 (Bogucki)
US 20170186291 A1 (Wenus)
US 20180122217 A1 (para 13, 28, 37)
US 20160241818 A1 (para 13, Fig.1)
US 11412157 B1 (track a beacon and if it is in the field of view of the camera but moved then pan the camera
US 20080297601 A1 (Fig.8; para 53, 114 para 95, 97)
Response to Remarks/Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to prior art rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for following reason.
Applicant argued in substance that McCoy’s wireless signal is not from the camera.
First of all, the claim two devices the computing device as receiver and the camera as sender.
Given that McCoy has a computing device as receiver and camera and sensors working together as sender, they can be equated to claimed camera. Additionally, McCoy indicated “the sensors 106 may be an integrated part of the cameras 104” in para 26. It is also understood that a cell phone has both camera and GPS sensor.
Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
With respect to non-statutory double patenting rejection
On applicant’s request further analysis of double patenting rejection will be held in abeyance until allowable subject matter is found. In the meantime, they should be considered as being rejected under obvious type nonstatutory double patenting rejection against U.S. Patent No. 10873846 and U.S. Patent No. 11297482 respectively.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCoy in view of Peterson.
With Regards to Claim 1. McCoy teaches a method comprising:
receiving, by a computing device [(108 Fig.1)] and from a camera [(“The controlling device 108 may be operable to receive one or more signals from the cameras 104 and the sensors 106” {para 27}; )] :
data captured by the camera [(image or video “The person to be tracked may not be visible in images and/or videos captured by any of the cameras 104 of the multi-camera system 100. In such a case, the processor 202 may determine, in real time, the current location of the person to be tracked based on one or more signals received from the sensors 106” {para 63}; “may adjust the pan, tilt and/or zoom of the cameras 104 based on the current location of the person to be tracked such that the person to be tracked may lie in the field of view of at least one of the cameras 104.” {para 64})] ; and
information, related extracted from a wireless signal that was detected at a time associated with capture of the data by the camera [(RFID {para 23}, cell phone {para 24})]
determining, by the computing device and based on the data, that the source is outside a field of view of the camera [(the object/person is not visible or outside of FOV {para 58, 63})] ;
determining, after the determining that the source is outside the field of view, a location of the source [(“The person to be tracked may not be visible in images and/or videos captured by any of the cameras 104 of the multi-camera system 100. In such a case, the processor 202 may determine, in real time, the current location of the person to be tracked based on one or more signals received from the sensors 106” {para 63})] ; and
panning, based on the location of the source, the camera [(para 64, 55)] .
Therefore, the deficiency of McCoy is that it does not explicitly indicates that the wireless signal, such as RFID or cell phone signal {para 23, 24} that it detects, is to identify the source. However, RFID is usually used to identify the source. Besides McCoy is using this along with metadata to identify and locate the object under tracking {para 32}. Therefore, it is obvious that McCoy RFID is used for identify the object under tracking
Nevertheless, in the same/related field of endeavor, Peterson teaches that, wireless signal identifies the source [(para 9 & 25 ; para 98 & Fig.5; wireless activity from mobile device was detected while the camera 545 is on. security data collected by the camera/security device and wireless activity are timestamped for same time {para 8} )] :
Therefore, in light of above discussion it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of the prior arts because such combination would provide predictable result with no change of their respective functionalities.
McCoy in view of Bogucki additionally teaches with respect to claim 2. The method of claim 1, further comprising storing, in a database, second data captured by the camera, the information indicating the source, and the location of the source. [(McCoy location para 73, 28)] :
Peterson additionally teaches with respect to claim 3. The method of claim 1, wherein the camera is located at a premises, the method further comprising: determining, based on a list of predetermined trusted devices for the premises , that the source of the wireless signal is not a trusted device, wherein the panning is further based on the source of the wireless signal not being a trusted device. [(Peterson when unauthorized source detected security action is implemented { para 51, 46}. Security action includes panning {para 7}; also see para 40 )]
McCoy additionally teaches with respect to claim 4. The method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving, from the camera, second data: and determining, based on the second data, that the source is in the field of view of the camera[(McCoy visible image and non-visible image; para 73, 70 data is used to track the object; tracking means locating the object in the Field of view and out of field of view of camera {para 58})] .
McCoy additionally teaches with respect to claim 5. The method of claim 1, wherein the camera is associated with a drone, and the method further comprising: sending the drone to the location of the source of the wireless signal: and causing the drone to track the source of the wireless signal until the wireless signal is no longer detected [(“may control the movement of the aircraft such that the first camera 104a may be able to capture images of the people inside the building. For example, when the first camera 104a is not able to capture images from one side of the building, the processor 202 may control the aircraft to move to another side of the building.”; para 62)] .
McCoy additionally teaches with respect to claim 6. The method of claim 1, wherein the determining the location of the source comprises triangulating the location [(para 71)] .
McCoy additionally teaches with respect to claim 7. The method of claim 1, further comprising injecting the data with the information indicating the source to generate updated data: and sending, via a network, the updated data to a monitoring entity. [(para 82, 92, 101)]
McCoy additionally teaches with respect to claim 8. The method of claim 1, wherein the data comprises one or more of: at least one video, at least one audio, or at least one picture. [(image; para 73, 70)] :
Regarding claim 9: See the analysis of claim 1 and note McCoy is also teaching sending to a computing device.
Regarding claim 16: See the analysis of claim 1 and note McCoy is also teaching a system comprising: a computing device and a camera, wherein the computing device comprises: one or more first processors; and memory storing first instructions that, when executed by the one or more first processors [(para 42, 129)] and the camera comprises: one or more second processors; and memory storing second instructions that, when executed by the one or more second processors, cause the camera [(digital camera para 1 & Fig.1, cameras indicates these are cameras with processor and memory)]
Regarding claim 24: See the analysis of claim 1 and note McCoy is also teaching One or more non-transitory computer readable media storing instructions. [(para 129)]
Regarding Claims 10-15, 17-23, 25-31: Please see the analysis of claims 2-8.
Peterson additionally teaches with respect to claim 32. The method of claim 1, wherein the information that indicates the source of the wireless signal comprises one or more of: a MAC address, an IP address, or a device ID [(para 25, 71)]
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 claims at issue 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): and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http: //www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http: //www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-32 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 10873846 in view of Bogucki. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claim teaches all the limitations of the instant claims except that the data from the camera is used in determining that the source is outside the field of view of the camera. However, in the same/related field of endeavor, Bogucki teaches this (see the prior art analysis in a previous office action)
Therefore in light of above discussion it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of the prior arts because such combination would enhance the tracking [(Bogucki para 16-20, Fig.2)] .
Claims 1-32 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. 11297482 in view of Bogucki. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claim teaches all the limitations of the instant claims except that the data from the camera is used in determining that the source is outside the field of view of the camera. However, in the same/related field of endeavor, Bogucki teaches this (see the prior art analysis in a previous office action)
Therefore in light of above discussion it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of the prior arts because such combination would enhance the tracking [(Bogucki para 16-20, Fig.2)] ..
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shahan Rahaman whose telephone number is (571)270-1438. The examiner can normally be reached on 7am - 3:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-4195. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/SHAHAN UR RAHAMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426