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 Amendment
Applicant's response to the last Office Action, filed on 11/17/2025 has been entered and made of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 21, 31, 37 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of 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.
The factual inquiries 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 21, 23, 25-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korjus et al. (US 2020/0090366) in view of Carranza et al. (US 2019/0043207).
Regarding claim 21, Korjus teaches a system comprising: a camera having a field of view (see figure 3, para. 0156-0157, Korjus discusses camera with a field of view);
a radar sensor having a field of view that at least partially overlaps the field of view of the camera (see figure 10, para. 0209, Korjus discusses a robotic system implementing a camera and radar that overlap in front of the robotic system, see para. 0174, the radar determines the velocity of the incoming vehicle);
a controller operatively coupled to the camera and the radar sensor, the controller configured to: receive one or more signals from the radar sensor (see para. 0174, Korjus discusses radar sensor determines the velocity of the incoming vehicle);
identify an object of interest moving toward the camera based at least in part on the one or more signals from the radar sensor (see figure 10, para. 0209, Korjus discusses a robotic system implementing a camera and radar that overlap in front of the robotic system; see para. 0174, Korjus discusses the radar sensor is used to determine the velocity of the incoming vehicle; see figure 3, para. 0160, Korjus discusses identifying features of the oncoming vehicle);
determine a speed of travel of the object of interest based at least in part on the one or more signals from the radar sensor (see para. 0032, Korjus discusses calculating the velocity of the oncoming using a radar sensor);
determine a projected track of the object of interest (see para. 0163, Korjus discusses projecting a bounding box region on objects);
determine a projected image capture window within the field of view of the camera at which the object of interest is projected to arrive based at least in part on the determined speed of travel of the object of interest and the projected track of the object of interest, the projected image capture
window corresponding to less than all of the field of view of the camera (see para. 0163, Korjus discusses projecting a bounding box region on objects with a size less than the overall field of view of the robotic system);
send an image capture command to the camera to cause the camera to capture an image of the projected image capture window (see figure 3, para. 0158-0159, Korjus discusses sending a command to detect a vehicle features on a projected regions).
Carranza teaches send one or more camera setting commands to the camera, the one or more camera setting commands configured to set one or more of: a shutter speed camera setting based at least in part on the speed of travel of the object of interest; a focus camera setting to focus the camera on the projected image capture window; a zoom camera setting to zoom the camera to the projected image capture window; a pan camera setting to pan the camera to the projected image capture window; a tilt camera setting to tilt the camera to the projected image capture window (see para. 0021, 0062, 0081, Carranza discusses camera settings and parameters such as zoom, pan, luminance, etc. are adjusted accordingly to capture the object); and
send an image capture command to the camera to cause the camera to capture an image of the projected image capture window at a time when the object of interest is projected to arrive in the projected image capture window (see para. 0021, 0062, 0081, Carranza discusses predicting a future time and position of an object based on a current position, direction of travel, and speed of the object,; the camera settings and parameters such as zoom, pan, luminance, etc. are adjusted accordingly to capture the object).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Korjus with Carranza to derive at the invention of claim 21. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform camera adjustment for object detection.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Korjus in this manner in order to improve object detection by adjusting camera settings that improve detecting and tracking object according to the object’s movement. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Korjus, while the teaching of Carranza continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of calculating camera adjustment settings that will improve the detection and tracking of objects in images. The Korjus and Carranza systems perform object detection and camera adjustment, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Regarding claim 23, Carranza teaches wherein the one or more camera setting commands are configured to set: the shutter speed camera setting based at least in part on the speed of travel of the object of interest; the focus camera setting to focus the camera on the projected image capture window; and the zoom camera setting to zoom the camera onto the projected image capture window (see para. 0062, 0081, Carranza discusses camera settings and parameters such as zoom, focus, orientation, angle, pan, luminance, etc. are adjusted accordingly to capture an object).
The same motivation of claim 21 is applied to claim 23. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Korjus with Carranza to derive at the invention of claim 23. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform camera adjustment for object detection.
Regarding claim 25, Carranza teaches wherein the one or more camera setting commands are configured to set the focus camera setting to focus the camera on the projected image capture window (see para. 0062, 0081, Carranza discusses camera settings and parameters such as zoom, focus, orientation, angle, pan, luminance, etc. are adjusted to capture an object).
The same motivation of claim 21 is applied to claim 25. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Korjus with Carranza to derive at the invention of claim 25. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform camera adjustment for object detection.
Regarding claim 26, Carranza teaches wherein the one or more camera setting commands are configured to set the zoom camera setting to zoom the camera onto the projected image capture window (see para. 0062, 0081, Carranza discusses camera settings and parameters such zoom, focus, orientation, angle, pan, luminance, etc. are adjusted to capture an object).
The same motivation of claim 21 is applied to claim 26. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Korjus with Carranza to derive at the invention of claim 26. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform camera adjustment for object detection.
Regarding claim 27, Carranza teaches wherein the one or more camera setting commands are configured to set: the pan camera setting to pan the camera to the projected image capture window (see para. 0062, 0081, Carranza discusses controlling the panning of a camera to properly capture an object); and the tilt camera setting to tilt the camera to the projected image capture window (see para. 0062, 0081, Carranza discusses controlling the angle of a camera to properly capture an object).
The same motivation of claim 21 is applied to claim 27. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Korjus with Carranza to derive at the invention of claim 27. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform camera adjustment for object detection.
Regarding claim 28, Korjus teaches wherein the object of interest is a vehicle, and the projected image capture window includes a license plate of the vehicle (see figure 3, para. 0158-0159, Korjus discusses a projected region that is the license plate of a vehicle).
The same motivation of claim 21 is applied to claim 28. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Korjus with Carranza to derive at the invention of claim 28. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform camera adjustment for object detection.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korjus et al. (US 2020/0090366) in view of Carranza et al. (US 2019/0043207) in view of Shimosato (US 2017/0104938).
Regarding claim 22, Korjus and Carranza do not expressly disclose wherein the one or more camera setting commands set an aperture camera setting based at least in part on the shutter speed camera setting. However, Shimosato teaches wherein the one or more camera setting commands set an aperture camera setting based at least in part on the shutter speed camera setting (see para. 0044, Shimosato discusses controlling an aperture value of a camera to properly capture an object).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Korjus and Carranza with Shimosato to derive at the invention of claim 22. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform camera adjustment for object detection.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Korjus and Carranza in this manner in order to improve object detection by adjusting camera settings that improve detecting and tracking object according to the object’s movement. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Korjus and Carranza, while the teaching of Shimosato continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of calculating camera adjustment settings that will improve the detection and tracking of objects in images. The Korjus, Carranza, and Shimosato systems perform object detection and camera adjustment, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korjus et al. (US 2020/0090366) in view of Carranza et al. (US 2019/0043207) in view of Rosas-Maxemin et al. (US 2022/0108474).
Regarding claim 24, Korjus and Carranza do not expressly disclose wherein the one or more camera setting commands are configured to set the shutter speed camera setting based at least in part on the speed of travel of the object of interest. However, Rosas teaches wherein the one or more camera setting commands are configured to set the shutter speed camera setting based at least in part on the speed of travel of the object of interest (see para. 068, Rosas discusses adjusting camera settings such as the shutter speed based on a moving vehicle’s speed).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Korjus and Carranza with Rosas to derive at the invention of claim 24. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform camera adjustment for object detection.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Korjus and Carranza in this manner in order to improve object detection by adjusting camera settings that improve detecting and tracking object according to the object’s movement. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Korjus and Carranza, while the teaching of Rosas continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of calculating camera adjustment settings that will improve the detection and tracking of objects in images. The Korjus, Carranza, and Rosas systems perform object detection and camera adjustment, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Claims 29, 30, 37-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korjus et al. (US 2020/0090366) in view of Carranza et al. (US 2019/0043207) in view of Alghanem et al. (US 2022/0128701).
Regarding claim 29, Korjus and Carranza do not expressly disclose wherein the controller is configured to: identify the object of interest as a point cloud; determine a bounding box for the object of interest based at least in part on the point cloud; and determine the projected image capture window based at least in part on the bounding box.
However, Alghanem teaches wherein the controller is configured to: identify the object of interest as a point cloud (see figure 11, figure 12, para. 0116, Alghanem discusses object detection on point cloud data);
determine a bounding box for the object of interest based at least in part on the point cloud (see figure 11, figure 12, para. 0116, Alghanem discusses object detection bounding box on point cloud data); and
determine the projected image capture window based at least in part on the bounding box (see figure 11, figure 12, para. 0116, 0124, Alghanem discusses capturing image data of the bounding box objects).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Korjus and Carranza with Alghanem to derive at the invention of claim 29. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform camera adjustment for object detection.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Korjus and Carranza in this manner in order to improve object detection by adjusting camera settings that improve detecting and tracking object using a bounding box on point cloud data that allows the system to isolate a region of interest. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Korjus and Carranza, while the teaching of Alghanem continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of calculating camera adjustment settings that will improve the detection and tracking of objects in images by applying a bounding box to properly focus on regions of interest. The Korjus, Carranza, and Alghanem systems perform object detection and camera adjustment, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Regarding claim 30, Korjus teaches wherein the controller is configured to classify the object of interest into one of a plurality of classifications (see para. 0198, Korjus discusses image classifier algorithm to classify objects in images).
The same motivation of claim 29 is applied to claim 30. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Korjus and Carranza with Alghanem to derive at the invention of claim 30. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform camera adjustment for object detection.
Regarding claim 37, Korjus teaches a method for operating a camera comprising:
tracking a position of the object of interest (see figure 3, figure 10, para. 0160, 0174, Korjus discusses vehicle tracking and identifying features of the oncoming vehicle);
determining a projected position of the object of interest, wherein the projected position is within a field of view of a camera (see figure 3, para. 0160, Korjus discusses projecting a bounding box and identifying features of the oncoming vehicle);
determining a projected image capture window that corresponds to less than all of the field of view of the camera, the projected image capture window corresponds to the projected position of the object of interest (see figure 3, para. 0160, Korjus discusses projecting a bounding box and identifying features of the oncoming vehicle).
Carranza teaches setting one or more camera settings of the camera for capturing an image of the object of interest in the projected image capture window, wherein the one or more camera settings include a shutter speed setting, an aperture camera setting, and a focus camera setting (see para. 0062, 0081, Carranza discusses camera settings and parameters such as zoom, focus, orientation, angle, pan, luminance, etc. are adjusted to capture the object); and
capturing an image of the object of interest when at least part of the object of interest is projected to arrive at the projected position and in the projected image capture window (see para. 0021, 0062, 0081, Carranza discusses predicting a future time and position of an object based on a current position, direction of travel, and speed of the object to capture the object).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Korjus with Carranza to derive at the invention of claim 37. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform camera adjustment for object detection.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Korjus in this manner in order to improve object detection by adjusting camera settings that improve detecting and tracking object according to the object’s movement. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Korjus, while the teaching of Carranza continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of calculating camera adjustment settings that will improve the detection and tracking of objects in images. The Korjus and Carranza systems perform object detection and camera adjustment, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Korjus and Carranza do not expressly disclose identifying an object of interest using a radar sensor, wherein the object of interest is represented as a point cloud. However, Alghanem teaches identifying an object of interest using a radar sensor, wherein the object of interest is represented as a point cloud (see figure 11, figure 12, para. 0116, 0124, Alghanem discusses capturing image data of the bounding box objects).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Korjus and Carranza with Alghanem to derive at the invention of claim 37. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform camera adjustment for object detection.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Korjus and Carranza in this manner in order to improve object detection by adjusting camera settings that improve detecting and tracking object using a bounding box on point cloud data that allows the system to isolate a region of interest. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Korjus and Carranza, while the teaching of Alghanem continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of calculating camera adjustment settings that will improve the detection and tracking of objects in images by applying a bounding box to properly focus on regions of interest. The Korjus, Carranza, and Alghanem systems perform object detection and camera adjustment, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Regarding claim 38, Carranza teaches wherein setting the one or more camera settings includes setting a zoom camera setting (see para. 0062, 0081, Carranza discusses camera settings and parameters such zoom, focus, orientation, angle, pan, luminance, etc. are adjusted to capture the object).
The same motivation of claim 37 is applied to claim 38. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Korjus and Carranza with Alghanem to derive at the invention of claim 38. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform camera adjustment for object detection.
Regarding claim 39, Carranza teaches wherein setting the one or more camera settings includes setting one or more of a pan camera setting and a tilt camera setting (see para. 0062, 0081, Carranza discusses camera settings and parameters such zoom, focus, orientation, angle, pan, luminance, etc. are adjusted to capture the object).
The same motivation of claim 37 is applied to claim 39. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Korjus and Carranza with Alghanem to derive at the invention of claim 39. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform camera adjustment for object detection.
Claim 40 is rejected as applied to claim 28 as pertaining to a corresponding method.
Claims 31-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (US 2016/0320476) in view of Korjus et al. (US 2020/0090366) in view of Carranza et al. (US 2019/0043207).
Regarding claim 31, Johnson teaches a system comprising:
a camera having an operational range (see para. 0194, Johnson discusses a camera having a shorter operational range);
a radar sensor having an operational range, wherein the operational range of the radar sensor is greater than the operational range of the camera (see para. 0194, Johnson discusses a camera having a shorter operational range than a radar sensor).
Korjus teaches a controller operatively coupled to the camera and the radar sensor, the controller configured to: identify an object of interest within the operational range of the radar sensor using an output from the radar sensor (see para. 0174, Korjus discusses the radar determines the velocity of the incoming vehicle; see figure 3, para. 0160, Korjus discusses identifying features of the oncoming vehicle);
determine one or more motion parameters of the object of interest (see para. 0174, Korjus discusses the radar determines the velocity of the incoming vehicle).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Johnson with Korjus to derive at the invention of claim 31. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform camera adjustment for object detection.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Johnson in this manner in order to improve object detection by adjusting camera settings that improve detecting and tracking object according to the object’s movement. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Johnson, while the teaching of Korjus continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of calculating camera adjustment settings that will improve the detection and tracking of objects in images. The Johnson and Korjus systems perform object detection and camera adjustment, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Johnson and Korjus do not expressly disclose determine a projected image capture window within a field of view of the camera at which the object of interest is projected to arrive based at least in part on the one or more motion parameters; after setting the one or more camera settings for the camera, cause the camera to capture an image of the object of interest at a time when the object of interest is projected to arrive in the projected image capture window.
However, Carranza teaches determine a projected image capture window within a field of view of the camera at which the object of interest is projected to arrive based at least in part on the one or more motion parameters (see para. 0021, 0062, 0081, Carranza discusses predicting a future time and position of an object based on a current position, direction of travel, and speed of the object; camera settings and parameters such as zoom, pan, luminance, etc. are adjusted accordingly to capture the object); and
after setting the one or more camera settings for the camera, cause the camera to capture an image of the object of interest at a time when the object of interest is projected to arrive in the projected image capture window (see para. 0021, 0062, 0081, Carranza discusses predicting a future time and position of an object based on a current position, direction of travel, and speed of the object; camera settings and parameters such as zoom, pan, luminance, etc. are adjusted accordingly to capture the object).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Johnson and Korjus with Carranza to derive at the invention of claim 31. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform camera adjustment for object detection.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Johnson and Korjus in this manner in order to improve object detection by adjusting camera settings that improve detecting and tracking object according to the object’s movement. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Johnson and Korjus, while the teaching of Carranza continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of calculating camera adjustment settings that will improve the detection and tracking of objects in images. The Johnson, Korjus, and Carranza systems perform object detection and camera adjustment, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Regarding claim 32, Carranza teaches wherein the one or more camera settings includes one or more of a shutter speed of the camera, an aperture setting of the camera, and a zoom setting of the camera (see para. 0062, 0081, Carranza discusses camera settings and parameters such as zoom, focus, orientation, angle, pan, luminance, etc. are adjusted accordingly to capture the object).
The same motivation of claim 31 is applied to claim 32. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Korjus and Carranza with Alghanem to derive at the invention of claim 32. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform camera adjustment for object detection.
Regarding claim 33, Carranza teaches wherein the one or more motion parameters include a speed of travel of the object of interest (see para. 0021, Carranza discusses a future time and position of the object can be predicted based on the current position, direction of travel, and/or speed of the object).
The same motivation of claim 31 is applied to claim 33. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Korjus and Carranza with Alghanem to derive at the invention of claim 33. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform camera adjustment for object detection.
Regarding claim 34, Carranza teaches wherein the one or more motion parameters include a projected track of the object of interest (see para. 0021, Carranza discusses a future time and position of the object can be predicted based on the current position, direction of travel, and/or speed of the object).
The same motivation of claim 31 is applied to claim 34. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Korjus and Carranza with Alghanem to derive at the invention of claim 34. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform camera adjustment for object detection.
Regarding claim 35, Carranza teaches wherein the controller is configured to determine a projected position of the object of interest based at least in part on the projected track of the object of interest (see para. 0021, Carranza discusses a future time and position of the object can be predicted based on the current position, direction of travel, and/or speed of the object).
The same motivation of claim 31 is applied to claim 35. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Korjus and Carranza with Alghanem to derive at the invention of claim 35. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform camera adjustment for object detection.
Regarding claim 36, Carranza teaches wherein the controller is configured to cause the camera to capture an image of the object of interest when the object of interest reaches the projected position (see para. 0021, Carranza discusses a future time and position of the object can be predicted based on the current position, direction of travel, and/or speed of the object).
The same motivation of claim 31 is applied to claim 36. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Korjus and Carranza with Alghanem to derive at the invention of claim 36. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform camera adjustment for object detection.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNY A CESE whose telephone number is (571) 270-1896. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, 9am – 4pm.
If attempts to reach the primary examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gregory Morse can be reached on (571) 272-3838. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Kenny A Cese/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2663