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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-16 are 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.
Claims 1 and 16 recite the limitation “setting multiple imaging apparatuses.” The limitation renders the claims indefinite because it is not clear whether some or all of the multiple imaging apparatus are selected from the plurality of imaging apparatuses, or a different/new set of imaging apparatuses are set. For the purpose of further examination, the limitation has been interpreted as “setting at least two imaging apparatuses from the plurality of imaging apparatuses.”
Claims 2-15 depend from claim 1 and therefore inherit all of the deficiencies of claim 1 discussed above.
Claims 2 and 3 further recite the limitation “the imaging apparatuses.” The limitation renders the claims indefinite because it is not clear which of the multiple or plurality of imaging apparatus are being referred to. Also refer to the 112(b) rejection of claim 1 above regarding claim interpretation.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 10, 14, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai et al. (TW200829021A), in view of Singla et al. (US 2025/0008060 A1; EFD: Jun. 27, 2023), hereinafter referred to as Tsai and Singla, respectively.
Regarding claim 1, Tsai teaches an inspection method, adapted for execution using an electronic apparatus, the inspection method (Tsai Title: “Monitoring System and Its Operating Method” – note that all pages of Tsai cited in this Office action correspond to the translated document) comprising:
obtaining position information between a plurality of imaging apparatuses (Tsai Figs. 1-2; Tsai pg. 2: “A surveillance system … includes at least one fixed camera, one image processing unit, and one mobile camera”; Tsai pg. 3: “includes multiple fixed cameras, an image processing unit, and a storage unit … capture the area to be monitored”; Tsai pg. 5: “the method for predicting the movement direction of the moving target … subtracting the coordinates of the moving target in the current first image from the coordinates of the moving target in the current reference image”);
determining an inspection route based on a target event and the relative position information, wherein the inspection route satisfies the target event, and setting multiple imaging apparatuses passed through in the inspection route as a plurality of inspection apparatuses (Tsai pg. 11: “assuming a moving target A enters the monitoring area 100 through the entrance … the fixed camera 201 will first obtain a first image … When the first image captured by the fixed camera 201 is transmitted to the image processing unit 310 and determines the presence of moving target A, the image processing unit 310 can incrementally infer the movement path P of moving target A based on the first image obtained consecutively. Therefore, the imaging processing unit 310 can sequentially instruct the fixed cameras 201, 202, 203, 206, and 204 to enter alert mode from normal mode, and simultaneously instruct the mobile camera 500 to proceed to the next position of the moving target A for monitoring”); and
controlling a real-time video signal of each of the inspection apparatuses to be presented to a display apparatus based on the inspection route (Tsai pg. 11 discussed above; Tsai pg. 10: “the surveillance system 1000 may further include a display 340 … to display the first image … display a second image via the image processing unit 310”).
However, Tsai does not appear to explicitly teach obtaining relative position information between a plurality of imaging apparatuses.
Pertaining to the same field of endeavor, Metzler teaches obtaining relative position information between a plurality of imaging apparatuses (Singla Abstract: “A plurality of networked video camera is deployed and represented in a graph map based on the video camera environment, with parent nodes corresponding to video cameras and child nodes corresponding to path intersections among the video cameras.”; Singla ¶¶0155: “At block 822, edges may be determined among nodes. For example, each pair of nodes that is connected by an object path may be represented as an edge between those nodes. The resulting graph map may represent the relative positions of the cameras and object paths for at least one object type”).
Tsai and Singla are considered to be analogous art because they are directed to multi-camera surveillance systems and methods. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the monitoring system and method (as taught by Tsai) to obtain relative position information of the cameras (as taught by Singla) because the combination provides a more reliable and efficient way of using video data from a networked video camera in the same vicinity to initiate modification of video capture operations before an object is detectable in the field of view of the video camera, allowing the system to reduce delays in object detection and avoid missing fast moving objects (Singla ¶¶0004-¶¶0005).
Regarding claim 2, Tsai, in view of Singla, teaches the inspection method according to claim 1, further comprising: establishing the relative position information between the imaging apparatuses, comprising:
providing a plan view corresponding to a space where the imaging apparatuses are disposed (Tsai Figs. 1-2; Singla Fig. 2 & ¶¶0056: “overhead view of camera environment 202”);
marking a plurality of plane positions corresponding to the plan view of actual positions where the imaging apparatuses are disposed in the space in the plan view based on user operation (Singla ¶¶0056: “a generally overhead view of camera environment 202 may allow cameras 110 and other relevant attributes of camera environment 202 to be graph mapped using a coordinate position system. Coordinate position systems may include two-dimensional mapping based on longitude and latitude or another X-Y coordinate system and scale applied to camera environment 202”); and
calculating the relative position information between the imaging apparatuses based on the plane positions (Singla Fig. 2 & ¶¶0155 discussed above).
Regarding claim 3, Tsai, in view of Singla, teaches the inspection method according to claim 1, further comprising: establishing the relative position information between the imaging apparatuses, comprising:
respectively obtaining a plurality of images corresponding to the imaging apparatuses from the imaging apparatuses (Tsai pgs. 2-3: “The image processing unit communicates with the fixed camera to receive the first image and processes the first image to confirm the presence of any moving targets”; Tsai pg. 5: “comparing the current first image with a reference image to calculate the number of pixels that have changed relative to the pixels of the reference image”); and
calculating the relative position information between the imaging apparatus by finding corresponding feature points in each two images (Tsai pg. 5 discussed above, further see Tsai pg. 5: “subtracting the coordinates of the moving target from the coordinates of the previous first image in the previous reference image to obtain a first movement direction; Subtract the coordinates of the moving target in the current first image from the coordinates of the moving target in the current reference image, to obtain a second movement direction”).
Regarding claim 10, Tsai, in view of Singla, teaches the inspection method according to claim 1, wherein the target event comprises an event configured to indicate inspection of at least one work area,
determining the inspection route comprises:
selecting at least one target apparatus corresponding to the at least one work area in the imaging apparatus (Tsai Figs. 1-2 & pg. 11 discussed above); and
determining the inspection apparatus based on the relative position information and the at least one target apparatus (Tsai Figs. 1-2, pg. 11, & Singla ¶¶0056 discussed above).
Regarding claim 14, Tsai, in view of Singla, teaches the inspection method according to claim 1, further comprising:
providing an inspection result interface to the display apparatus, wherein the inspection result interface comprises a video block, a plan view block, an inspection screenshot block, and an information block (Fig. 2; Singla ¶¶0043: “camera control subsystem 150 may include interface protocols and a set of functions and parameters for using, configuring, communicating with, and providing command messages to cameras 110”; Singla ¶¶0044: “video capture subsystem 152 may include interface protocols and a set of functions and parameters for receiving video streams from cameras 110”; Singla ¶¶0046: “video analysis subsystem 156 may include interface protocols and a set of functions and parameters for analyzing video data from cameras 110”; Singla ¶¶0047: “video display subsystem 158 may include interface protocols and a set of functions and parameters for displaying video from video capture subsystem 152 and/or video storage subsystem 154 on user device 170 … a monitoring or display configuration for displaying one or more video streams in real-time or near real-time on a graphical user display of user device 170 and/or receive video navigation commands from user device 170 to selectively display stored video data from video storage subsystem 154”; ),
the video block is configured to play real-time video signals in real time (Singla ¶¶0047 discussed above),
the plan view block is configured to display a plan view corresponding to a space where the imaging apparatus is located, and the plan view comprises a plurality of position information corresponding to the plan view corresponding to actual positions where the imaging apparatuses are disposed in the space and a trajectory based on an inspection order (Singla Fig. 2: 250-256),
the inspection screenshot block is configured to display a screenshot corresponding to the target event (Singla ¶¶0046 discussed above; Singla ¶¶0042: “Memory 134 may include a video analysis subsystem configured to analyze video streams and/or video data for defined events, such as motion, recognized objects, recognized faces, and combinations thereof. Memory 134 may include a video display subsystem configured to selectively display video streams on user device 170, which may be attached to network video recorder 130 or remotely connected via network 102”),
the information block is configured to display real-time information corresponding to the target event (Singla ¶¶0042-¶¶0047 discussed above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the monitoring system and method (as taught by Tsai) to provide various interface protocols on display (as taught by Singla) because the combination can easily notify the user and visualize detected events (Singla ¶¶0053).
Regarding claim 15, Tsai, in view of Singla, teaches the inspection method according to claim 1, wherein a process of controlling the real-time video signal of each of the inspection apparatuses to be presented to the display apparatus based on the inspection route further comprises:
in response to receiving a position selected in real-time video signal presented on the display apparatus, simultaneously presenting real-time information corresponding to a specified object or a work area comprised in the position on the display apparatus (Tsai pg. 11 discussed above; Tsai pg. 2: “transmitting the footage to a monitor for real-time monitoring by security personnel”; also see Singla ¶¶0030: “video analysis subsystem 124 may receive the real-time video data stream from sensor 112 and/or encoder 118, detect a video event, and instruct another camera to modify video capture operations prior to an object of interest entering the field of view of that other camera”; Singla ¶¶0047: “video display subsystem 158 may include a monitoring or display configuration for displaying one or more video streams in real-time or near real-time on a graphical user display of user device 170 and/or receive video navigation commands from user device 170 to selectively display stored video data from video storage subsystem 154. In some embodiments, video display subsystem 158 may maintain an index of real-time/near real-time video streams and/or stored or archived video streams that are available for access by user device 170”).
Regarding claim 16, Tsai, in view of Singla, further teaches an inspection system, comprising:
a plurality of imaging apparatuses (Tsai Figs. 1-2: cameras 201-209);
a display apparatus (Tsai Fig. 1: display 340); and
a processor, coupled to the imaging apparatus and the display apparatus, wherein the processor is configured to perform the method described in claim 1 (Tsai Fig. 1: image processing unit 310).
Therefore, claim 16 is rejected using the same rationale as applied to claim 1 discussed above.
Claim(s) 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai et al. (TW200829021A), in view of Singla et al. (US 2025/0008060 A1), and further in view of Dhayalan et al. (US 2023/0319415 A1), hereinafter referred to as Tsai, Singla, and Dhayalan, respectively.
Regarding claim 11, Tsai, in view of Singla, teaches the inspection method according to claim 1, further comprising determining the inspection apparatuses comprised in the inspection route based on the target event; and determining an inspection order of the inspection apparatuses by referring to an event order of the target event and basing on the relative position information (Tsai Fig. 2, pg. 11 & Singla ¶¶0155 discussed above).
However, Tsai, in view of Singla, does not appear to explicitly teach determining at least one other target event.
Pertaining to the same field of endeavor, Dhayalan teaches determining at least one other target event to determine the inspection order (Dhayalan Abstract: “A method for controlling a PTZ camera having a controllable FOV includes detecting a first detection event … A second detection event is detected by a second detector located at a second location”; Dhayalan Figs. 1-2 & Dhayalan ¶¶0041: “The third detection event corresponds to the third detector detecting a second object in a third detection region along the second path”).
Tsai, in view of Singla, and Dhayalan are considered to be analogous art because they are directed to multi-camera surveillance systems and methods. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the monitoring system and method (as taught by Tsai, in view of Singla) to determine inspection order based on at least two separate events (as taught by Dhayalan) because the combination provides an improved method of controlling PTZ cameras in order to capture relevant events within a space (Dhayalan ¶¶0002).
Regarding claim 12, Tsai, in view of Singla, teaches the inspection method according to claim 1, further comprising determining an inspection order of the inspection apparatuses based on the relative position information (Tsai Fig. 2, pg. 11 & Singla ¶¶0155 discussed above).
However, Tsai, in view of Singla, does not appear to explicitly teach using a priority order of the imaging apparatuses.
Pertaining to the same field of endeavor, Dhayalan teaches determining an inspection order of the inspection apparatuses based on the relative position information and a priority order of the imaging apparatuses (Dhayalan Figs. 1-2 & Dhayalan ¶¶0025-¶¶0026: “one of the pathways 26 and 28 may have a relatively higher priority assigned to it while the other of the pathways 26 and 28 may have a relatively lower priority assigned to it … If motion is detected along both the first pathway 26 and the second pathway 28, and the relative position of the motion along each of the pathways 26 and 28 is positioned such that the PTZ camera 24 is not able to hold both sources of motion within its FOV, the PTZ camera 24 will be directed on the second pathway 28 because the second pathway 28 has a higher priority level (e.g. priority level of one)”; Dhayalan ¶¶0041: “The third detection event corresponds to the third detector detecting a second object in a third detection region along the second path, wherein the second path has a higher priority than the first path, as indicated at block 74. In response to the third detection event, the PTZ camera is no longer automatically controlled in response to the first detection event and/or the second detection event, and instead is automatically controlled such that the FOV of the PTZ camera includes at least part of the third detection region along the second path in the monitored region to capture the second object, as indicated at block 76”; Dhayalan ¶¶0049: “The one or more processors are caused to receive a second detection event corresponding to a second object in a second area of the monitored region, wherein the second area has a higher priority than the first area, as indicated at block 98. The one or more processors are caused to, in response to receiving the second detection event, automatically send control commands for use by the PTZ camera such that the FOV of the PTZ camera ceases to track the first object and starts tracking the second object in the second area, as indicated at block 100”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the monitoring system and method (as taught by Tsai, in view of Singla) to determine inspection priority (as taught by Dhayalan) because the combination provides an improved method of controlling PTZ cameras in order to capture relevant events within a space (Dhayalan ¶¶0002).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-9 and 13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 4, the prior art of record teaches that it was known at the time the application was filed to use the inspection method according to claim 1, wherein the target event comprises an event configured to indicate that a specified object is captured (Tsai Fig. 2 & pg. 11 discussed above), wherein determining the inspection route comprises:
determining whether the imaging apparatuses captured the specified object by executing an artificial intelligence model to execute an object detection algorithm on the real-time video signal received by each of the imaging apparatuses (Tsai pgs. 2-3 discussed above; Singla ¶¶0095: “at least some analytical models may be machine learning based models trained based on one or more sets of relevant reference data”); and
in response to a plurality of target apparatuses among the imaging apparatuses capturing the specified object, determining the inspection apparatuses based on the relative position information and the target apparatuses that captured the specified object (Tsai Fig. 2, pg. 11, & Singla ¶¶0155 discussed above).
However, the prior art, alone or in combination, does not appear to teach or suggest that the number of the inspection apparatuses comprised in the inspection route is greater than or equal to a number of the target apparatuses.
Claims 5-9 are objected to for the same reason as claim 4 discussed above due to dependency.
Regarding claim 13, the prior art of record teaches that it was known at the time the application was filed to use the inspection method according to claim 1, wherein a process of sequentially displaying the video signal of each of the inspection apparatuses to the display apparatus based on the inspection route further comprises:
in response to detecting that a new event satisfies the target event, reselecting multiple of the imaging apparatuses as a plurality of new inspection apparatuses (Tsai pg. 11 discussed above teaches that a plurality of cameras are selected for inspection based on the path of the detected object; Tsai Fig. 3: S130 & pg. 8-9: “the image processing unit 310 determines whether any moving targets are present in these first images based on the image processing results … When the image processing unit 310 confirms that at least one moving target is present in these first images, it predicts the direction of the moving target and instructs the mobile camera 500 to proceed to surveillance”- in Tsai Fig. 3 S110-S130 are repeated until the detection is confirmed. Also see Tsai Fig. 4: S210-240; Singla ¶¶0170: “At block 924, new child nodes may be added to the graph map. For example, the graph map may be expanded to include new paths among the new camera locations and the original camera locations and represent the new intersections as child nodes”);
re-determining a new inspection route of the new inspection apparatuses based on the relative position information (Tsai Figs. 3-4, pg. 8-9, 11 & Singla ¶¶0155 , ¶¶0170 discussed above); and
controlling the real-time video signal of each of the new inspection apparatuses to be presented to the display apparatus based on the new inspection route (Tsai Fig. 2 & pg. 11 discussed above).
However, the prior art, alone or in combination, does not appear to teach or suggest that an imaging apparatus corresponding to video signal currently displayed by the display apparatus is the inspection starting point.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOO J SHIN whose telephone number is (571)272-9753. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 10-6.
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, Matthew Bella can be reached at (571)272-7778. 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.
/Soo Shin/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2667 571-272-9753
soo.shin@uspto.gov
Prosecution Insights