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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1,5 ,9, 13-27 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 1,5 ,9, 13-27 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10846536, claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11106918 and claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 11250268. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because other than minor variations, then pending claims recite substantially the same limitations the claims listed below.
Pending Application
(currently amended): An image processing device comprising: one or more memories storing instructions; and one or more processors configured to execute the instructions to:detect a plurality of objects in a predetermined state, the predetermined state being determined based on a distance between each of the plurality of objects and a representative position associated with an abnormal state; determine an occurrence of the abnormal state
Patent 10,846,536
1. An image processing device comprising: a memory for storing instructions; and a processor that executes the stored instructions to perform a method, the method comprising: detecting whether an input image includes one or more persons in a predetermined state, the predetermined state being indicative of a predetermined changed state of a person corresponding to a type of an abnormal state; and determining an occurrence of the abnormal state when a plurality of persons in the predetermined state are detected in the input image, wherein the determining further comprises: counting a number of the plurality of persons who are detected in the input image and who have a relative distance of within a predetermined distance from each other; and determining whether the counted number of the plurality of persons is equal to or more than a predetermined number.
Patent 111069181. An abnormality detection method implemented by a computer, the method comprising: detecting a target state change in a person on the basis of an input image, wherein the target state change including at least one of: looking back, looking up, covering head with an arm or a hand, pointing with a finger, taking a picture, running away, jumping up, frowning, closing eyes, looking surprised, blushing, blanching, nose pinching, cellular phone operation, and hand waving; calculating a relative distance between each pair of persons of the plurality of persons in the input image; detecting occurrences of the target state change in a plurality of persons whose relative distance is closer than a predetermined distance; and determining an abnormal state in accordance with detecting the occurrences of the target state change in the plurality of persons.
Patent 11250268
1. An image processing system comprising: at least one memory storing instructions; and one or more processors configured to process the instructions to perform: detecting a predetermined change in an outer appearance of a person in at least part of an inputted image, the predetermined change being detected among a plurality of persons within the inputted image with respect to a head, the predetermined change including a change due to a presence or an occurrence of an abnormal state; calculating a time width including occurrence times of respective changes which are detected among the plurality of persons in case occurrences of the predetermined change are equal to or more than a predetermined number; detecting that the predetermined change occurs in a plurality of heads as a detection result; and determining whether the predetermined change indicates the abnormal state or not, based on the detection result and the time width.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1,5 ,9, 13-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1, 5 and 9 recites “ a plurality of objects”. The original Specification exclusively refers to persons, not generalized objects The spec never describes detecting or determining abnormal states of non-person objects. A POSITA would not recognize that th e inventors were in possession of a system operating on a plurality of arbitrary objects.
Claim 1, 5 and 9 recites “ a representative position associated with an abnormal state”. The Examiner has reviewed the Specification and was unable to find support for this limitation. The closest the Examiner could find is as follows:
Paragraph [0055] discloses “The output processing unit 16 may also cause the output device 6 to output an image in which the input image is colored in a circular shape or an elliptical shape centering on a representative position of a person group as the basis on the input image, with a color corresponding to a distance from the representative position.“
Paragraph [0057] discloses “The decision unit 17 decides the representative position of a person group on the input image, the detected state change of the person group being a basis of the determination for an abnormal state”
Paragraph [0058] discloses “According to such an output example, since the representative position of the person group as the basis and a distance from the representative position are easier to be ascertained, it is possible to output an image which is useful to specifying a place of an abnormal state. “
Paragraph [0073] discloses “The control unit 18 may control the imaging direction of the monitoring camera 7 on the basis of the representative position of a person group of which the detected state change is a basis of the determination for an abnormal state on the input image”
Paragraph [0075] discloses “According to such a method, since the representative position of a person group being a basis of the determination for an abnormal state is located in the center of the input image, the representative position of a person group as the basis and the vicinity thereof are easier to be observed by a person who sees the image. Thereby, since there is a high possibility of an abnormal state being present at the position of a person group as the basis and in the vicinity thereof, the place of the abnormal state can be easily inferred. “
Claim 1, 5 and 9 recites “ the predetermined step determined based on a distance between each of the plurality of objects and a representative position.”. The Examiner has reviewed the Specification and was unable to find support for this limitation. Paragraph 39 discloses calculating relative distance between each person having a target state change, but not a distance between each person and a representative position.
Claims 13-27 are rejected as dependent upon a rejected claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1,5 ,9, 13-27 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1, 5 and 9 recites “a plurality of objects being in a predetermined state, the predetermined state determined based on a distance between each of the plurality of objects and a representative position.”. If the predetermined state is determined (calculated) using distances, it cannot be predetermined (defined as fixed in advanced). For purpose of Examination, the Examiner is treating the word predetermined as non-limiting.
Claim 1, 5 and 9 recites “ a representative position associated with an abnormal state”. It is not clear what this term means. There is a circular definition. The abnormal state is determined from the detecting step. But the detecting step uses the abnormal state. In other words how can there be a position of an abnormal state before the abnormal state has been determined.
Claims 17, 22 and 27 recites “the distance”. This should be “each distance”, since the independent claims recite a plurality of distances.
Claims 13-27 are rejected as dependent upon a rejected claim.
No Prior Art has been found that reads on claims 1,5, 9 as currently written.
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 GANDHI THIRUGNANAM whose telephone number is (571)270-3261. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5PM.
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, Sumati Lefkowitz can be reached at 571-272-3638. 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.
/GANDHI THIRUGNANAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2672