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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/25/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-7, 9, 10 and 13-15 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 9, 10 and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono (U.S. PG Publication No. 2020/0059595) in view of Ishii et al. (“Ishii”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2019/0191098).
In regards to claim 1, Ono teaches a control apparatus comprising:
a memory storing instructions (See ¶0076, 0080 and 0085) and records positions (See ¶0085-0087); and
a processor configured to execute the instructions (See ¶0056, 0152 and 0162) to:
acquire a position of the object on an image (“Consequently, the tracking target estimation unit 118 may extract from the monitoring region image a person or object that is moving approximately equal to the apparent movement speed of the image in the display image data (in other words, a person or object that continues to exist in an approximately fixed location inside the image displayed on the display device 120), and estimate the extracted person or object as the tracking target,” - ¶0143, also “The database of the tendencies of operation may include, for example, information about the size, position, and the like of the tracking target in the field of view when being tracked manually by each operator,” - ¶0141), and
determine a target position in an image captured in a second state (See ¶0083-0089 wherein the second state is taught as the automatic tracking mode), after transitioning from a first state, in which automatic tracking settings for tracking an object to display the object at the target position on an image are not performed (See ¶0083-0089 wherein the first state is taught as the manual tracking mode by which the user may manually pan, tilt or zoom the camera, and thus automatic tracking settings are not performed), to the second state, in which the automatic tracking settings are performed, based on the position of the object on the image without the target position being set by the user (See ¶0083-0089 wherein the automatic tracking settings are performed by the system through automatic tracking, however this is based upon image analysis by the system, though the information is indeed displayed to the user, but is not explicitly set by the user).
Ono, however, fails to teach and records positions of a plurality of objects.
In a similar endeavor Ishii teaches records positions of a plurality of objects (See ¶0055-0057 wherein a plurality of objects may be tracked, with an order of priority being determined as seen in 0064 and 0130, and furthermore in order to track objects within a three-dimensional space, the three-dimensional position of an object must be stored and calculated as described in at least 0038 and 0064).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Ishii into Ono because it allows for potential tracking of multiple objects, along with their corresponding positions being stored in memory as described in at least ¶0038, 0064 and 0215-0216, thus providing improvement in tracking since it allows for positional information to be used in tracking.
In regards to claim 2, Ono teaches the control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to determine as the target position the position of the object on the image (See ¶0083-0089 and 0141-0143).
In regards to claim 3, Ono teaches the control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to determine a center position of the image as the target position in a case where the object is moving when transitioning from the first state to the second state, and to determine as the target position the position of the object on the image when transitioning from the first state to the second state in a case where the object is stationary (See ¶0137, 0142 and 0219).
In regards to claim 9, Ono teaches the control apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to acquire the image from an image pickup apparatus (See ¶0081 and 0152).
In regards to claim 10, Ono teaches the control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to detect the position of the object using an image (See ¶0141-0143).
In regards to claim 13, the claim is rejected under the same basis as claim 1 by Ono in view of Ishii.
In regards to claim 14, the claim is rejected under the same basis as claim 13 by Ono in view of Ishii wherein the computer-readable medium is taught as seen in ¶0210.
In regards to claim 15, Ono teaches the control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to control so that a position of the object in an image captured in the second state becomes the target position (See ¶0083-0087; also, “Consequently, the tracking target estimation unit 118 may extract from the monitoring region image a person or object that is moving approximately equal to the apparent movement speed of the image in the display image data (in other words, a person or object that continues to exist in an approximately fixed location inside the image displayed on the display device 120), and estimate the extracted person or object as the tracking target,” - ¶0143).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono (U.S. PG Publication No. 2020/0059595) in view of Ishii et al. (“Ishii”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2019/0191098) and Kinoshita (U.S. PG Publication No. 2015/0373414).
In regards to claim 4, Ono fails to teach the control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein in the second state, an angle of view is changed so that a size of the object in the image approaches a target size, wherein the processor is configured to acquire the size of the object in an image, and wherein the processor is configured to determine as the target size the size of the object in the image which is acquired by the processor.
In a similar endeavor Kinoshita teaches wherein in the second state, an angle of view is changed so that a size of the object in the image approaches a target size, wherein the processor is configured to acquire the size of the object in an image, and wherein the processor is configured to determine as the target size the size of the object in the image which is acquired by the processor (See ¶0325 where when the system is placed into a tracking process [thus transitions into this process as incorporated by Ono’s teaching, and orchestrated by a processor as taught by Ono] the system may perform automatic zooming such that the object is within a predetermined size, and thus such a zooming may also require an adjustment in the angle of view as well based on the distance change).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Kinoshita into Ono because it allows for the proper adjustment of zoom and angle of view in order to appropriately track a selected object as seen in ¶0325, thus improving accuracy of the system.
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono (U.S. PG Publication No. 2020/0059595) in view of Ishii et al. (“Ishii”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2019/0191098) and Fukuda et al. (“Fukuda”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2021/0370178).
In regards to claim 5, Ono fails to teach the control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to determine as the target position one of a plurality of positions of the object acquired and recorded before transitioning from the first state to the second state.
In a similar endeavor Fukuda teaches wherein the processor is configured to determine as the target position one of a plurality of positions of the object acquired and recorded before transitioning from the first state to the second state (See ¶0014 and 0138 wherein the position and orientation of an object is tracked through time [up to a predetermined amount of time from the current time], this is taken in view of Ono’s teachings in ¶0083-0089 with regards to the position of the object in the current time from a switch of states).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Fukuda into Ono because it allows for continual updates on the arrangement information of objects as described in ¶0138 at desired timing, thus allowing for continual recording of important tracking information if need be.
In regards to claim 6, Ono fails to teach the control apparatus according to claim 5, the processor is configured to determine as the target position the position of the object that was recorded a predetermined time before transitioning from the first state to the second state.
In a similar endeavor Fukuda teaches the processor is configured to determine as the target position the position of the object that was recorded a predetermined time before transitioning from the first state to the second state (See ¶0014 and 0138 wherein the position and orientation of an object is tracked through time [up to a predetermined amount of time from the current time], this is taken in view of Ono’s teachings in ¶0083-0089 with regards to the position of the object in the current time from a switch of states).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Fukuda into Ono because it allows for continual updates on the arrangement information of objects as described in ¶0138 at desired timing, thus allowing for continual recording of important tracking information if need be.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono (U.S. PG Publication No. 2020/0059595) in view of Ishii et al. (“Ishii”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2019/0191098) and Fukuda et al. (“Fukuda”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2021/0370178), in further view of Suzuki (U.S. PG Publication No. 2021/0400196).
In regards to claim 7, Ono fails to teach the control apparatus according to claim 6, wherein the predetermined time is based on a difference between a time when the system is instructed to transition from the first state to the second state, and a time when the system transitions from the first state to the second state.
In a similar endeavor Suzuki teaches wherein the predetermined time is based on a difference between a time when the system is instructed to transition from the first state to the second state, and a time when the system transitions from the first state to the second state (See ¶0041 in view of FIG. 3-5 wherein during the automatic tracking mode transition function, a detection frame is generated based on the detected moving objects among the superimposed detection frames as the tracking target, specifically in that a detection frame specified by an operation may be set as the tracking frame, thus it is recorded in memory even while the transition to another state may take more time, this is taken in view of Ono’s teachings).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Suzuki into Ono because it allows for the identification of the specifically desired frame at which was selected, and not the frame at which the system is finally enabled to switch because of processing time, as such enabling for a more accurate system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDEMIO NAVAS JR whose telephone number is (571)270-1067. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, ~ 9 AM -6 PM.
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, Joseph Ustaris can be reached at 5712727383. 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.
EDEMIO NAVAS JR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2483
/EDEMIO NAVAS JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483
Prosecution Insights