DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to claim 1, which has been amended to include limitations of original claims 2 and 5, Applicant appears to be arguing the Examiner made an inherency argument when stating “there is no indication non-target image data would also be retrieved”. The Examiner first points out that this state is true, there is no indication non-target image data would also be retrieved. But this does not mean that such a statement is an admission of “a lack of explicit disclosure of the recited claim.
Applicant does not appear to argue Nadler does not state the positive occurrences of the claim, i.e. extracting target images. The claim then merely defined a “non-target image” and not target images. When taking Nadler as a whole there is sufficient evidence they are not extracting other data when they extract the target data. For example, paragraph 59 and 61 states the camera capture continuous and uninterrupted video feeds of areas to the database (i.e. other non-target data does exist), but paragraph 61 and 76, as cited by the Examiner, talks about retrieval of data from the database being configured to acquire the required data” and retrieving data “as and when required”. Nadler makes clear what data they require (i.e. data of the target) and the claim similarly merely defines “non-target image” as merely not target images. One of ordinary skill would recognize that, in context of the claim, if you pull data as needed and that data of need is target data you are not pulling non-target data because it is not needed.
Applicant has not provided any indication other data then that relating to the target image is extracted which is consistent with the Examiners statement that there is no indication non-target data would also be retrieved. Thus, in view of the above the Examiner finds Applicant’s argument unpersuasive.
Applicant also argues with respect to Fig. 3, that because the determined object locations prior to determining if the object is in a zone the claim limitations of somehow not met. The Examiner is unclear how this is relevant as the Examiner’s relied upon sections i.e. paragraph 75-76 and 84 relate to tracking of the object after it has been identified. Nadler discusses in paragraph 75-76 pulling data as needed for tracking of the objects based off their unique object identity, geospatial location and time stamps. One of ordinary skill would recognize that you may also need a step of determining those things prior to this operation. This is merely what Fig. 3 of Nadler shows, it does not nullify that data is still pulled only as need later for other operations such as tracking.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4 and 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0387716 A1 to Nadler.
With respect to claim 1 Nadler discloses, in Fig. 1-5, a management system (paragraph 55), comprising: one or more memory devices storing an image database (paragraph 61); and processing circuitry (paragraph 57) configured to: communicate with a moving body having a localization function (paragraph 59; where UAVs with cameras are provided as one of the sensors); acquire an image captured by a moving camera mounted on the moving body and information on a moving camera position that is a position of the moving body when the image is captured (paragraph 61 and 70; where required data comes from a local database on the camera device, as paragraph 70 states position of the sensor is required for object of interest calculations this would include sensor location information as well as the image data); extract the image of a target area captured by the moving camera as a target image, based on the moving camera position (paragraph 70); and execute an area management process to manage the target area based on the target image (paragraph 84); accumulate moving camera image data indicating a correspondence relation between the image and the moving camera position in the image database (paragraph 61 and 70); and extract the image of the target area as the target image from the image database, based on the moving camera position (paragraph 61 and 70) wherein a non-target image is the image other than the target image, and the processing circuitry extracts only the target image from the image database without extracting the non-target image and execute the area management process (paragraph 76; where info related to the unique object identity as retrievable, there is no indication non-target image data would also be retrieved).
With respect to claim 3 Nadler discloses, in Fig. 1-5, the management system according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: acquire the image, the information of the moving camera position, and information of a time stamp of the image (paragraph 75-76); and extract the image of the target area captured by the moving camera in a target period of time as the target image, based on the moving camera position and the time stamp (paragraph 75-76).
With respect to claim 4 Nadler discloses, in Fig. 1-5, the management system according to claim 3, further comprising one or more memory devices storing an image database, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: accumulate moving camera image data indicating a correspondence relation between the image, the moving camera position, and the time stamp in the image database (paragraph 75-76); and extract the image of the target area in the target period of time as the target image from the image database, based on the moving camera position and the time stamp (paragraph 75).
With respect to claim 6 Nadler discloses, in Fig. 1-5, the management system according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to acquire a second image from a stationary camera, wherein an imaging area of the stationary camera overlaps with an imaging area of the moving camera (paragraph 59 and 70; where multiple sensors, which includes fixed camera and drones are used through the process related to the object).
With respect to claim 7 Nadler discloses, in Fig. 1-5, the management system according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to acquire stationary images from a plurality of stationary cameras, and the image captured by the moving camera includes an imaging area overlapping with a gap in a collective imaging area of the plurality of stationary cameras (paragraph 59; where what a “gap” is is not defined by the claim, the broadest reasonable interpretation is that a “gap” is an area not seen by one or more cameras, paragraph 59 makes it clear the cameras field of views are not intended to be same field of views, thus they inherently are covering “gaps” of each other even if overlapped as they would have “mutually different angles”).
With respect to claim 8 Nadler discloses, in Fig. 1-5, the management system according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to extract the target image based on the moving camera position and a received input defining the target area (paragraph 70 and 76).
With respect to claim 9 Nadler discloses, in Fig. 1-5, the management system according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: acquire a second image from a stationary camera (paragraph 59; where cameras include stationary cameras with mutually different angles); compare the moving camera position with an area that is not covered by the stationary camera (paragraph 76; where data is pulled as needed, which would be the comparison of if a camera covers the same area or not, i.e. is the data needed); and acquire the image captured by the moving camera at the moving camera position, when the moving camera position is included in the area that is not covered by the stationary camera (paragraph 76; where Nadler is fully capable of acquiring moving camera data and not the static camera data depending on the location of the UAV, if the UAV and the static camera are not in the same location Nadler satisfies this limitation).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DANIEL M PASIEWICZ whose telephone number is (571)272-5516. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 AM - 5:30 PM EST.
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, George Eng can be reached at (571)272-7495. 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.
/DANIEL M PASIEWICZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2699
September 12, 2025