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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/29/2024 is/are compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Office Action Summary
Claim(s) 1-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1-11 and 17-18 is/are interpreted under 35 USC 112(f).
Claim(s) 1-4 and 8-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsushige et al (JP 6236549 B1) in view of Wada et al (US 6714236 B1).
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsushige et al (JP 6236549 B1) in view of Wada et al (US 6714236 B1), further in view of Krahnstoever et al (US 2009/0304230 A1).
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.
Claim(s) 1-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. When reviewing independent claim 1, and based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, claim(s) 1-18 is/are held to claim an abstract idea without reciting elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and is/are therefore rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. The Examiner will analyze claim 1, and similar rationale applies to independent Claim(s) 17 and 18. The rationale, under MPEP § 2106, for this finding is explained below:
The claimed invention (1) must be directed to one of the four statutory categories, and (2) must not be wholly directed to subject matter encompassing a judicially recognized exception, as defined below. The following two step analysis is used to evaluate these criteria.
Step 1: Is the claim directed to one of the four patent-eligible subject matter categories: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
When examining the claim under 35 U.S.C. 101, the Examiner interprets that the claims is related to a process, since the claim is directed to a method, a device, and a CRM to do a target monitoring.
Step 2a, Prong 1: Does the claim wholly embrace a judicially recognized exception, which includes laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas, or is it a particular practical application of a judicial exception?
The Examiner interprets that the judicial exception applies since Claim(s) 1 limitation of acquire an image including a marine view captured by a camera during a panning operation; detect a target included in the image; determine whether or not the detected target is identical to a target registered in a database; and stop the panning operation of the camera with the detected target included in an angle of view is/are directed to an abstract idea. The claim is related to mental process by collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis, where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and/or performing a mental process in a computer environment. An example of a case identifying a mental process performed in a computer environment as an abstract idea is Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d at 1316-18, 120 USPQ2d at 1360. If the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea enumerated in MPEP § 2106.04(a), a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon), the claim requires further analysis in Prong Two.
Step 2a, Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
The Examiner interprets that Claim(s) 1 limitation does not provide additional elements or combination of additional elements to a practical application since the claim(s) is/are performed by processor (adding the words of “applying it” with more instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). or Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)). See, MPEP §2106.04(a), Because a judicial exception is not eligible subject matter, Bilski, 561 U.S. at 601, 95 USPQ2d at 1005-06 (quoting Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. at 309, 206 USPQ at 197 (1980)), if there are no additional claim elements besides the judicial exception, or if the additional claim elements merely recite another judicial exception, that is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See, e.g., RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract"). OR Genetic Techs. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (eligibility "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself."). For a claim reciting a judicial exception to be eligible, the additional elements (if any) in the claim must "transform the nature of the claim" into a patent-eligible application of the judicial exception, Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 217, 110 USPQ2d at 1981, either at Prong Two or in Step 2B. If there are no additional elements in the claim, then it cannot be eligible. In such a case, after making the appropriate rejection (see MPEP § 2106.07 for more information on formulating a rejection for lack of eligibility), it is a best practice for the examiner to recommend an amendment, if possible, that would resolve eligibility of the claim.
Step 2b: If a judicial exception into a practical application is not recited in the claim, the Examiner must interpret if the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The Examiner interprets that the Claims do not amount to significantly more since the Claim(s) is/state adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Furthermore, the generic computer components of the processor recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system.
Claim(s) 2-16 depending on the independent claim/s include all the limitation of the independent claim. The Examiner finds that Claim(s) 2-16 does not states significantly more since the claim only recites acquire an image including a marine view captured by a camera during a panning operation; detect a target included in the image; determine whether or not the detected target is identical to a target registered in a database; and stop the panning operation of the camera with the detected target included in an angle of view.
Thus, Claim(s) 1-18 recite the same abstract idea and therefore are not drawn to the eligible subject matter as they are directed to the abstract idea without significantly more.
Therefore, the Examiner interprets that the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “target detection unit” in claim(s) 1 and 17-18, “camera control unit” in claim(s) 2 and 5-11, and “image recognition unit” in claim(s) 3 and 4.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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) 1-4 and 8-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsushige et al (JP 6236549 B1) in view of Wada et al (US 6714236 B1).
Regarding claim(s) 1, 17, and 18, Matsushige teaches a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium (Paragraph [0017]), recording a control program that causes a computer to:
sequentially acquire an image including a marine view captured by a camera during a panning operation (Paragraph [0018]: “The image analyzing unit 11 analyzes a video (moving image) obtained by one or more cameras 2 mounted on a target ship and photographs the surrounding water and grasps a water object such as a ship by an image recognition technology”; and Paragraph [0020]: “The camera 2 […] may be of a movable type including movements such as turning and movement”);
detect a target included in the image (Paragraph [0011]: “the image analyzing unit analyzes the image data acquired by the camera photographing the water around the ship and detects the presence of the first water object in the image”; and Paragraph [0018]: “The image analyzing unit 11 analyzes a video (moving image) obtained by one or more cameras 2 mounted on a target ship and photographs the surrounding water and grasps a water object such as a ship by an image recognition technology”);
determine whether or not the detected target is identical to a target registered in a database in which target data of a target detected by a target detection unit different from the camera is registered (Paragraph [0011]: “image data acquired by the camera photographing the water around the ship and detects the presence of the first water object in the image, and the image analyzing unit detects the presence of the first water object in the image, And a radar information collaboration unit that acquires radar information including information on the second water object from the radar”; Paragraph [0024]: “the coordinate system is transformed/matched between the image of the result analyzed by the image analysis unit 11 and the radar information 16, and the water objects which are recognized/recognized are related to each other”; and Paragraph [0021]: “The radar information cooperating unit 12 has a function of acquiring radar information from a ship's radar 3 provided in a target ship and recording it on a recording medium such as a memory as radar information 16”).
Matsushige fails to teach to stop the panning operation of the camera with the detected target included in an angle of viewWada teaches to stop the panning operation (read as “still monitoring”) of the camera with the detected target included in an angle of view, when the detected target is not the target registered in the database (Col. 1, lines 45-49: “in the case when the moving picture detecting means detects a motion in the monitored pictures, the controller switches the operation of the security camera from automatic monitoring to still monitoring”; Abstract: “during an automatic monitoring operation for shooting target monitoring places sequentially, a shooting point of the security camera is fixed there so as to shoot and display an abnormal situation on a monitor screen”; and Col. 5, lines 8-9: “a memory 78 for storing registered information”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Matsushige and Wada before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation for this combination of references would have been to ensure that a detected object is properly observed and recognized by switching from an automatic monitoring mode to a fixed monitoring state so that the object can be accurately grasped and not missed during continuous monitoring, and to efficiently and effectively combine information obtained from a camera image with information obtained from a radar device for improved recognition of surrounding objects. This motivation for the combination of Matsushige and Wada is supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III).
Regarding claim(s) 2, Matsushige as modified by Wada teaches the target monitoring device according to claim 1, where Wada teaches wherein the camera control unit continues the panning operation of the camera (Col. 1, lines 45-49: “in the case when the moving picture detecting means detects a motion in the monitored pictures, the controller switches the operation of the security camera from automatic monitoring to still monitoring”; Abstract: “during an automatic monitoring operation for shooting target monitoring places sequentially, a shooting point of the security camera is fixed there so as to shoot and display an abnormal situation on a monitor screen”) where Matsushige teaches when the detected target is identical to the target registered in the database (Paragraph [0012]: “the position information on the first water object acquired by the image analysis unit is matched with the position information on the second water object acquired by the radar information cooperation unit”; Paragraph [0024]: “the coordinate system is transformed/matched between the image of the result analyzed by the image analysis unit 11 and the radar information 16, and the water objects which are recognized/recognized are related to each other”; Paragraph [0018]: “The image analyzing unit 11 analyzes a video (moving image) obtained by one or more cameras 2 mounted on a target ship and photographs the surrounding water and grasps a water object such as a ship by an image recognition technology”; and Paragraph [0020]: “The camera 2 […] may be of a movable type including movements such as turning and movement”).
Regarding claim(s) 3 and 4, Matsushige as modified by Wada teaches the target monitoring device according to claim 1, where Matsushige teaches wherein the image recognition unit generates target data of the detected target from the image acquired (Paragraph [0018]: “The image analyzing unit 11 analyzes a video […] and photographs the surrounding water and grasps a water object such as a ship by an image recognition technology […] Information on the recognized water object may be recorded in the recording medium such as a memory”) where Wada teaches while the panning operation is stopped, and registers it in the database (Col. 1, lines 45-49: “in the case when the moving picture detecting means detects a motion in the monitored pictures, the controller switches the operation of the security camera from automatic monitoring to still monitoring”; Abstract: “during an automatic monitoring operation for shooting target monitoring places sequentially, a shooting point of the security camera is fixed there so as to shoot and display an abnormal situation on a monitor screen.”; and Col. 5, lines 8-9: “a memory 78 for storing registered information”).
Regarding claim(s) 8-11, Matsushige as modified by Wada teaches the target monitoring device according to claim 1, where Wada teaches wherein the camera control unit causes the camera to resume the panning operation when a particular period of time has elapsed after the panning operation is stopped (Col. 1, lines 45-49: “in the case when the moving picture detecting means detects a motion in the monitored pictures, the controller switches the operation of the security camera from automatic monitoring to still monitoring”; Abstract: “during an automatic monitoring operation for shooting target monitoring places sequentially, a shooting point of the security camera is fixed there so as to shoot and display an abnormal situation on a monitor screen”; and Col. 8, lines 55-67: “The operator, after entering an ID for specifying an auto tracing operation […] for "South Entrance Hall" registered in the preset table 88 […] to turn the camera in the direction and observe the picture for a predetermined time. Next […] for "Elevator Hall, Left" registered in the preset table […] to turn the camera in the direction and observe the picture for a predetermined time. Specifying monitoring targets one by one such way, the operator turns the composite camera towards each target[…]”).
Regarding claim(s) 12-16, Matsushige as modified by Wada teaches the target monitoring device according to claim 1, wherein target data of a target detected by at least one of a camera different from the camera, a radar, and an AIS (Automatic Identification System) is registered in the database (Paragraph [0011]: “image data acquired by the camera photographing the water around the ship and detects the presence of the first water object in the image, and the image analyzing unit detects the presence of the first water object in the image, And a radar information collaboration unit that acquires radar information including information on the second water object from the radar”; Paragraph [0024]: “the coordinate system is transformed/matched between the image of the result analyzed by the image analysis unit 11 and the radar information 16, and the water objects which are recognized/recognized are related to each other”; and Paragraph [0021]: “The radar information cooperating unit 12 has a function of acquiring radar information from a ship's radar 3 provided in a target ship and recording it on a recording medium such as a memory as radar information 16”).
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsushige et al (JP 6236549 B1) in view of Wada et al (US 6714236 B1), further in view of Krahnstoever et al (US 2009/0304230 A1).
Regarding claim(s) 5-7, Matsushige as modified by Wada teaches the target monitoring device according to claim 1, where Wada teaches wherein the camera control unit (Col. 1, lines 45-49: “in the case when the moving picture detecting means detects a motion in the monitored pictures, the controller switches the operation of the security camera from automatic monitoring to still monitoring”; Abstract: “during an automatic monitoring operation for shooting target monitoring places sequentially, a shooting point of the security camera is fixed there so as to shoot and display an abnormal situation on a monitor screen.”; and Col. 5, lines 8-9: “a memory 78 for storing registered information”).
Matsushige and Wada fails to teaches wherein the camera control unit causes the camera to zoom Krahnstoever wherein the camera control unit causes the camera to zoom (Paragraph [0039]: “The target classification device 350 can receive the high resolution imagery of a specific detected target in order to further determine if the detected target is a target of interest […] The zoom cameras can also be used to further identify detected targets and suppress certain false alarms. For example, when a target is detected as an object, the zoom cameras can obtain a higher resolution image of the object to determine […]”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Matsushige, Wada, and Krahnstoever before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation for this combination of references would have been to efficiently and effectively combine information obtained from a camera image with information obtained from a radar device to recognize surrounding objects, and to ensure that a detected object is not missed by switching from automatic monitoring to still monitoring in which a shooting point is fixed, while further directing a pan-tilt-zoom camera toward the detected target to obtain a higher resolution image for further classification and more accurate recognition of the target. This motivation for the combination of Matsushige, Wada, and Krahnstoever is/are supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III).
Relevant Prior Art Directed to State of Art
Sugimoto et al (US 2024/0015398 A1) are relevant prior art not applied in the rejection(s) above. Sugimoto discloses a control apparatus comprising: a processor that controls a surveillance camera that surveils a surveillance region, wherein the processor allows switching an operation mode of the surveillance camera between a first surveillance mode in which a target object present in the surveillance region is detected and tracked, and a second surveillance mode in which the target object is imaged according to a manual operation performed with respect to the surveillance camera, divides the surveillance region into a first region and a second region, and switches the operation mode from the first surveillance mode to the second surveillance mode and causes the surveillance camera to perform a zoom to change a region including the target object according to a fact that the target object tracked in the first surveillance mode in the first region enters the second region.
Olsson et al (US 2019/0377947 A1) are relevant prior art not applied in the rejection(s) above. Olsson discloses a method comprising: capturing an image of a maritime vessel; processing the image to extract information associated with the vessel; receiving automatic identification system (AIS) data; comparing the extracted information to the AIS data; and generating an alarm in response to a discrepancy detected by the comparing.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONGBONG NAH whose telephone number is (571) 272-1361. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 9:00 AM - 5:30 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, ONEAL MISTRY can be reached on 313-446-4912. 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.
/JONGBONG NAH/Examiner, Art Unit 2674
/ONEAL R MISTRY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2674
Prosecution Insights