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 .
DETAILED ACTION
RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS
Claim Status
The examiner acknowledges the amendment of claims 1, 12 & 14-15 and the cancellation of claim 13 filed 12/10/2025.
35 USC 101 Rejection
Applicant submits claims are not directed to abstract ideas because they recite a specific apparatus and “controlling imaging direction to track”. Applicant also submits that the office has not provided evidence that elements are conventional.
In response, examiner submits the claims remain directed to the abstract idea of receiving region definitions, evaluating spatial relationship between regions, and presenting information about validity of region settings, which can be characterized as a mental process/organizing information.
The “controlling imaging direction” is recited at a high level and does not specify a technological improvement in camera control; rather it is the expected functional result of generic tracking systems.
The additional elements (memories, processors, display of information) are generic computer components performing their usual functions and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more.
In view of above arguments, examiner submits rejection is sufficient and respectfully maintained.
Prior Art Rejection
The examiner acknowledges the amendment of claims 1, 12 & 14-15 and the cancellation of claim 13 filed 12/10/2025. Applicants arguments filed on (12/10/2025) have been fully considered but are deemed moot in view of new grounds of rejection. Due to the variation in claim scope via amendments a new ground of rejection is proper.
CLAIM REJECTIONS - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-12 & 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to as ineligible under subject eligibility test. In the Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes (Federal Register, Vol. 79, No. 241, dated Tuesday, December 16, 2014, page 74621), The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional device elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea.
Claims 1 & 14-15
Step 1
This step inquires “is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?” Yes,
Claim 14 – “Method” is a process.
Claims 1 & 15 - “Apparatuses” or “Non-Transitory CRM” are machines.
Step 2A - Prong 1
This step inquires “does the claim recite an abstract idea, law or natural phenomenon”. This claim appears to directed to an abstract idea.
The limitation of “ detect a tracking target in an image captured by an imaging capturing device; (2) receive (a) information of a first area for tracking the tracking target and (b) information of a second area which is different from the first area and which is related to tracking; (3) control, based on a position of the tracking target, an imaging direction of the imaging capturing device to track the tracking target in a case where the tracking target is in the first area; and(4) cause a setting screen to display first information indicating that the second area is outside the first area, the setting screen being a screen in which a user inputs at least one of the first area and the second area.”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (e.g. mathematical concepts, mental processes or certain methods of organizing human activity) but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “one or more memories storing instructions; and one or more processors executing the instructions to image a tracking target,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “one or more memories storing instructions; and one or more processors executing the instructions to image a tracking target,” language, “detecting, receiving, controlling, causing” in the context of this claim encompasses covers performance of the limitation in the mind (e.g. mathematical concepts, mental processes or certain methods of organizing human activity).
STEP 2A – PRONG 1 - CONCLUSION
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2
This step inquires “does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites two additional element – using a “one or more memories storing instructions; and one or more processors executing the instructions to image a tracking target,” to perform “detecting, receiving, controlling, causing” steps. The “one or more memories storing instructions; and one or more processors executing the instructions to image a tracking target,” are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor) “ detect a tracking target in an image captured by an imaging capturing device; (2) receive (a) information of a first area for tracking the tracking target and (b) information of a second area which is different from the first area and which is related to tracking; (3) control, based on a position of the tracking target, an imaging direction of the imaging capturing device to track the tracking target in a case where the tracking target is in the first area; and(4) cause a setting screen to display first information indicating that the second area is outside the first area, the setting screen being a screen in which a user inputs at least one of the first area and the second area.” such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
STEP 2A – PRONG 2 - CONCLUSION
Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The critical inquiry here is does the claim recite additional elements that amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception? The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a “one or more memories storing instructions; and one or more processors executing the instructions to image a tracking target,” to perform “detecting, receiving, controlling, causing” steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims
As to claim 2, this claim is directed to generic computer components (“processor, client, UI/display”), mental process (“presenting a message/UI”) and insignificant extra-solution activity (“outputting the result”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 3, this claim is directed to generic computer components (“processor, client, UI”), mental process (“yes”) and insignificant extra-solution activity (“yes”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 4, this claim is directed to generic computer components (“processor, client, UI”), mental process (“yes”) and insignificant extra-solution activity (“yes”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 5, this claim is directed to generic computer components (“processor, client, UI”), mental process (“if/then gating”) and insignificant extra-solution activity (“yes”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 6, this claim is directed to generic computer components (“processors and tracking/UI control”), mental process (“determination/transition logic”) and insignificant extra-solution activity (“screen transitions/outputs”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 7, this claim is directed to generic computer components (“processors and tracking/UI control”), mental process (“determination/transition logic”) and insignificant extra-solution activity (“screen transitions/outputs”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 8, this claim is directed to mental process (“switching targeting area following object”) and insignificant extra-solution activity (“field of use/result”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 9, this claim is directed to generic computer components (“one or more processors, screen, client”) and insignificant extra-solution activity (“presentation of information”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 10, this claim is directed to generic computer components (“one or more processors, client apparatus, imaging unit”) and insignificant extra-solution activity (“presentation of information”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 11, this claim is directed to generic computer components (“one or more processors, client apparatus”), mental process (“correcting second region to be inside first region”) and insignificant extra-solution activity (“presentation of information”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 12, this claim is directed to generic computer components (“one or more processors, client apparatus”) and insignificant extra-solution activity (“presentation of information”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-2 & 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Sablak et al. (U.S. Publication 2016/0006991) in view of Onishi (U.S. Publication 2009/0289791)
As to claims 1 & 14-15, Sablak discloses one or more memories storing instructions; and one or more processors ([0041-0042] discloses a processor and memory architecture.) (1) detecting a tracking target in an image captured by an imaging capturing device ([0006-0007] discloses auto tracking identifies a moving object in sequential images and track the object by moving the camera. [0115] discloses explaining comparing sequential images/pixels to sense movement); (2) receive (a) information of a first area for tracking the tracking target and (b) information of a second area which is different from the first area and which is related to tracking ([0075] discloses a mask having an unmasked area that is entirely surrounded by a masked area. [0114] discloses a user defining a virtual mask 204 by selecting vertices on the display.); (3) control, based on a position of the tracking target, an imaging direction of the imaging capturing device to track the tracking target in a case where the tracking target is in the first area; ([0037] discloses camera motors enabling PTZ. [0006] discloses tracking by moving the camera to keep the moving object central. (e.g. Panning and Tilting). [0079] discloses explaining virtual masks are applied to the computed motion mask to inhibit auto tracker contribution from masked areas.)
and (4) cause a setting screen to display first information indicating that the second area is outside the first area, the setting screen being a screen in which a user inputs at least one of the first area and the second area
Sablak discloses [0114] discloses screen-based user input of mask vertices (i.e. setting screen aspect), where the user defines the virtual mask by selecting vertices.
Sablak is silent to displaying first information on a setting screen that indicates whether the second area is outside the range of the first area.
However, Onishi discloses displaying first information on a setting screen that indicates whether the second area is outside the range of the first area. ([0044] discloses causing monitor area setting screen to display inconsistent area. [0045] discloses where area I does not overlap with the monitor area. [0061] discloses an area setting screen used for setting monitor area i.e. a user input screen for at least one area.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Sablak’s disclosure to include the above limitations in order to provide immediate UI feedback that a user defined second area extends outside (or does not overlap) an intended first/tracking area, thereby preventing invalid/ineffective settings and improving usability during configuration of regions used by automated tracking.
As to claim 2, Sablak in view of Onishi discloses everything as disclosed in claim 1. In addition,
Sablak discloses providing a user interface for defining tracking related areas (e.g. region of interest) on a display screen (user input of vertices, drawn representation). [0097-0100]
Sablak in view of Onishi is silent to area setting UI for tracking related areas.
However, Onishi discloses displaying a dialogue (confirmation/inquiry) on the UI as part of area editing after identifying inconsistency (e.g. predetermined message presented to the user before/while updating area settings. [0014, 0057-0059, 0075-0076] discloses dialogue display unit inquiry dialogue; updating based on operation input after the dialogue, and the explicit confirmation dialogue shown in the add/delete examples [0075-0076] discloses confirmation dialogue displayed for adding interpolation area.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Sablak in view of Onishi’s disclosure to include the above limitations in order to improve operability and prevent invalid or inconsistent area configurations.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 4 & 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Sablak et al. (U.S. Publication 2016/0006991) in view of Onishi (U.S. Publication 2009/0289791) as applied in claim 1 further in view of Cheng (U.S. Publication 2019/0130582)
As to claim 4, Sablak in view of Onishi discloses everything as disclosed in claim 1 but is silent to wherein the one or more processors transmit a user interface (UI) including the first information on a screen where it is able to perform selection between (a) a start of tracking and (b) a transition to a setting screen for inputting the first area.
However, Cheng’s Fig. 5-6, 11A-12B, 13 & [0016-0019, 0033-0034, 0042] discloses wherein the one or more processors transmit a user interface (UI) including the first information on a screen where it is able to perform selection between (a) a start of tracking and (b) a transition to a setting screen for inputting the first area. (Figure 11-13 and Corresponding Disclosure)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Sablak in view of Onishi’s disclosure to include the above limitations in order to prevent failed tracking sessions and avoid rework in the field.
As to claim 11, Sablak in view of Onishi discloses everything as disclosed in claim 1 but is silent to wherein the one or more processors (1) correct the second area to be within the first area in a case where the second area is outside a range of the first area, and (2) cause the setting screen to display second information indicating that the second area has been corrected.
However, Cheng’s Fig. 13 & 1304-1306 discloses wherein the one or more processors (1) correct the second area to be within the first area in a case where the second area is outside a range of the first area, and (2) cause the setting screen to display second information indicating that the second area has been corrected.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Sablak in view of Onishi’s disclosure to include the above limitations in order to ensure consistent tracking constraints without forcing manual re-entry.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sablak et al. (U.S. Publication 2016/0006991) in view of Onishi (U.S. Publication 2009/0289791) as applied in claim 1 further in view of Oshima (U.S. Publication 2019/0306410)
As to claim 6, Sablak in view of Onishi discloses everything as disclosed in claim 1 but is silent to wherein the second area is an initial position area, and wherein the initial position area is an area to which the imaging direction of the imaging capturing device is directed in a case where the tracking target is lost during tracking.
However, Oshima’s (S44, Figs. 4A-6B, 8-10) discloses wherein the second area is an initial position area, and wherein the initial position area is an area to which the imaging direction of the imaging capturing device is directed in a case where the tracking target is lost during tracking.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Sablak in view of Onishi’s disclosure to include the above limitations in order to guarantee a deterministic recovery point when a target is lost.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sablak et al. (U.S. Publication 2016/0006991) in view of Onishi (U.S. Publication 2009/0289791) as applied in claim 1 further in view of Gao (U.S. Publication 2013/0147961)
As to claim 8, Sablak in view of Onishi discloses everything as disclosed in claim 1 but is silent to
wherein the second area is a tracking target detection area, and wherein, in a case where the tracking target enters the tracking target detection area, the
However, Gao discloses wherein the second area is a tracking target detection area, and wherein, in a case where the tracking target enters the tracking target detection area, the (Fig. 6 & [0067, 0073-0074] discloses hotspots; entry/exit; people appear/disappear. Hotspots are locations associated with video analytics including entry/exit points where people appear/disappear; hotspots may be detected from tracking moving objects and used in the analytics workflow.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Sablak in view of Onishi’s disclosure to include the above limitations in order to preserve data memory usage and using memory on unimportant events.
Claims 7 & 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Sablak et al. (U.S. Publication 2016/0006991) in view of Onishi (U.S. Publication 2009/0289791) as applied in claim 1 further in view of Addy (U.S. Publication 2008/0036860)
As to claim 7, Sablak in view of Onishi discloses everything as disclosed in claim 1 but is silent to
wherein the second area is a fixed angle-of-view area, and wherein, in a case where the tracking target enters the fixed angle-of-view area, the tracking is stopped and an imaging region of the imaging capturing device is set to a predetermined imaging region.
However, Addy’s Abstract & [0018-0024] & Figs. 1, 3-4 discloses wherein the second area is a fixed angle-of-view area, and wherein, in a case where the tracking target enters the fixed angle-of-view area, the tracking is stopped and an imaging region of the imaging capturing device is set to a predetermined imaging region.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Sablak in view of Onishi’s disclosure to include the above limitations in order to snap the camera to a stable, pre tuned view for reliable target imaging.
As to claim 10, Sablak in view of Onishi discloses everything as disclosed in claim 1 but is silent to wherein the one or more processors transmit a user interface (UI) including a screen including a range that can be captured by the imaging capturing device, on the setting screen. However, Addy’s [0018-0024] discloses wherein the one or more processors transmit a user interface (UI) including a screen including a range that can be captured by the imaging capturing device, on the setting screen.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Sablak in view of Onishi’s disclosure to include the above limitations in order to let operators position the second area relative to the camera’s reachable range and avoid unreachable settings.
CONCLUSION
No prior art has been found for claims 3, 5, 9 & 12 in their current form.
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 Stephen P Coleman whose telephone number is (571)270-5931. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8AM-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, Andrew Moyer can be reached at (571) 272-9523. 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.
Stephen P. Coleman
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2675
/STEPHEN P COLEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2675