DETAILED ACTION
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 Status
Claims 1-6 were pending for examination in Application No. 18/043,198 filed February 27th,
2023. In the remarks and amendments received on August 1st, 2025, claims 1-6 are amended, no
claims are cancelled, and no claims are added. Accordingly, claims 1-6 are pending for examination in
the application.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments filed August 1st, 2025, have overcome the specification objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed May 15th, 2025. Accordingly, the objection is withdrawn. Examiner warmly thanks Applicant for considering the amendments to be made to the disclosure.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed August 1st, 2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 1 and 4-6
have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new combination
of references, facilitated by Applicant’s newly submitted amendments being used in the current
rejection.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh et al. (KR-102152237-B1), and further in view of Kim (KR-102143029-B1).
Regarding claim 1, Oh teaches A monitoring system system (“a CCTV control system (100) based on situation analysis may be configured to include a camera (110), a first image analysis device (120), a second image analysis device (130), and an integrated control server (150),” Para [0036]), comprising:
A plurality of cameras (“at least one camera for collecting surveillance images and transmitting the same,” Para [0010]) each having a function of video analysis by using a corresponding first AI model (“first image analysis device”) included in each of the plurality of cameras (“the first image analysis device (120) may be configured to be included in the camera (110) in the form of an embedded system,” Para [0039]); and
An analyzing device that generates a second AI model (“second image analysis device”), different from the first AI model, for use in the plurality of cameras (“the second image analysis device (130) can perform an image analysis necessary to determine a change in situation related to the occurrence of the event” (Para [0039]) that is captured by the first image analysis device),
wherein the analyzing device generates the second AI model (which creates “second metadata”) for detecting a certain person (“the second metadata may include information about the identity of the recognized object,” Para [0077] and “the second image analysis device (130) can recognize that an object is a person,” Para [0077]) that has carried out a certain action responsive to the certain action (“movement of an object related to the occurrence of the event”) being detected by any of the plurality of cameras through video analysis using the first AI model (“the first image analysis device (120) can perform a first image analysis necessary to determine the movement of an object related to the occurrence of the event,” Para [0039]).
Oh fails to teach the following limitations as further claimed.
Kim, however, further teaches: transmits the second AI model (Kim, “AI engine unit,” Para [0011]) to at least one of the plurality of cameras (Kim, “surveillance camera unit,” Para [0011]) so as to track the certain person (Kim, “objects include vehicles and people,” Para [0012]) across the plurality of cameras (Kim, “surveillance camera unit,” Para [0011]),
and the at least one of the plurality of cameras (Kim, “surveillance camera unit,” Para [0011]) independently detects the certain person (“a surveillance camera unit installed in an area where an object moves and filming an object in the area,” Para [0011]) through video analysis (Kim, “person recognition information may include the person's impression information, clothing information, hairstyle information, height information, number of shots taken information, and direction information,” Para [0012]) using the second AI model received from the analyzing device (Kim, “AI engine unit analyzing object recognition information through deep learning-based machine learning based on image information of the object filmed by the surveillance camera unit,” Para [0011]).
Kim is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of video tracking systems that use AI to track people or objects. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Kim into Oh for the benefit of tracking a person or object over a multi-camera view.
Claims 4-6 are camera, device, and method claims that correspond to system claim 1. Implementation of the camera, device, and method claims would necessitate the system claim. Therefore, the rejection of claim 1 applies fully to claims 4-6.
Claim(s) 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh et al. (KR-102152237-B1) in view of Kim (KR-102143029-B1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Klein et al. (US-20210049409-A1).
Regarding claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Oh in view of Kim teaches the system of claim 1, but fails to teach the following limitations as further claimed. Klein teaches characterized in that the analyzing device regenerates the second AI model (Fig. 5, step 555) in the case where the certain person (Fig. 1, “vehicle” 10) is detected through video analysis (Fig. 1, through cameras “40A,” “40B,” “40C,” or “40D’”) by using the second AI model (Fig. 5, step 550), and transmits the regenerated second AI model to one or more of the plurality of cameras (Fig. 5, step 555, and then steps 510-550).
Klein is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of object monitoring systems that implement machine learning. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Klein into Oh in view of Kim for the benefit of more accurate tracking of the object or person and more refined machine learning training.
PNG
media_image1.png
704
593
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
661
471
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Oh in view of Kim teaches the system of claim 1, but fails to teach the following limitations as further claimed. Klein teaches characterized in that the one or more cameras (Fig. 1, “first camera 40A” and “cameras 40B and/or 40C,” Para [0028]) include a camera (“40B and/or 40C”) that is away from the camera (“40A”) that has detected the certain action by a distance that is smaller than a threshold value (“For at least the frames of the image data where the vehicle 10 is in the overlapping fields of view of the first camera 40A and the camera 40C, the object and/or semantic information determined by the machine learning model that is associated with the first camera 40A is also applicable for use in training the machine learning model associated with the camera 40C,” Para [0029]. In other words, the two cameras share information so long as the object of interest is within their field of view boundary, a threshold).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Klein into Oh in view of Kim for the benefit of less processing redundancy between the plurality of cameras.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 RACHEL A OMETZ whose telephone number is (571)272-2535. The examiner can normally be reached 6:45am-4:00pm ET Monday-Thursday, 6:45am-1:00pm ET every other Friday.
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, Vu Le can be reached at 571-272-7332. 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.
/Rachel Anne Ometz/ Examiner, Art Unit 2668 9/8/25
/VU LE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2668