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 .
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/29/2026 has been entered.
Following prior arts are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20150116501 A1 (McCoy)
US 11412157 B1 (Slavin)
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. Considering the arguments new rejection has been presented. The new rejection used new prior art as well as new sections of existing prior arts. Therefore applicants’ argument are moot.
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, 9, 16, 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Slavin.
With Regards to Claim 1. Slavin teaches a method comprising:
receiving, by a computing device and from a camera [(Fig.1, 3 and 4A )] :
data captured by the camera [(column 14 line 55-68)] ; and
information, related extracted from a wireless signal that was detected at a time associated with capture of the data by the camera used to identify a source of the wireless signal [(column 14 lines 20-27, signal from beacon device; column 8 lines 25-29; column 14 lines 47-60, therefore the system has the capability differentiate/identify between two cats3)]
determining, by the computing device and based on the data, that the source is outside a field of view of the camera [(col. 14 lines 55-68, column 14)] ;
determining, after the determining that the source is outside the field of view, a location of the source [(column 5 lines 26-32)] ; and
panning, based on the location of the source, the camera [(column 5 lines 26-32)]
Regarding Claims 9, 16, 24: See analysis of claim 1 and Figs.1 and 2
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 1-2, 4-10, 12-17, 19-25, 27-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCoy in view of Slavin.
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 used to identify a source of the wireless signal [(the sensor 106 can be RFID {para 23, 122}, RFID transmit ID/identification; bluetooth transmitter of a cell phone {para 24})]
determining, by the computing device and [(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 while it is determining whether the field of view determination relied upon by data capture by the camera. Given that McCoy is dealing with PTZ camera and determining whether the object is within field of the view by detecting the object location, it is expected that the location is compared with current cameras view and camera view has be determined.
Slavin, in the same/related field of endeavor, teaches just this [(col. 14 lines 55-68, column 14)]
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 the capabilities of dynamically determining the current view [(both of the prior arts are using location of object to determine if the object is within the current view or not )]
McCoy 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)] :
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, 12-15, 17-23, 25-31: Please see the analysis of claims 2, 4-8.
McCoy in view of Slavin additionally teaches w.r.t. 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 [(McCoy using RFID, bluetooth)]
Claims 3,11, 18, 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCoy in view of Slavin in view of Peterson.
Regarding Claim 3,11, 18, 26 McCoy in view of Slavin does not explicitly show 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
However, in the same/related field of endeavor, Peterson teaches 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 )]
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. [(All prior art systems are useful for surveillance system , McCoy para 16; Slavin column 1 lines 15-20 )]
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 Slavin. 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, Slavin 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 Slavin. 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, Slavin 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
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
Prosecution Insights