DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This Action is responsive to Applicant’s response filed on 06/30/2026. All claims are still pending
in the present application. This Action is made FINAL.
Amendment
Applicants submitted amendments on 06/30/2026. The Examiner acknowledges the amendment and has reviewed the claims accordingly.
Response to Arguments
During prosecution, claim scope not solely on the basis of claim language, but also on giving claims their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See also Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim.”). Additionally, “[t]hough understanding the claim language may be aided by the explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not a part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.” Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections, in view of Applicant’s amendment to independent claim(s) 1, 17, and 18, and upon reconsideration of the claim(s) as a whole, the rejection of claim(s) 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. 101 is withdrawn.
With respect to the 112(f), In view of Applicant's amendment replacing the previously recited functional units with “processing circuitry” configured to perform the recited operations, and upon reconsideration of the amended claim language, the interpretation of claims 1-11 and 17-18 under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is withdrawn.
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered by are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Wada does not teach/suggest the claimed control logic because Wada switches from automatic monitoring to still monitoring in response to detection of an abnormal condition, whereas amended claim 1 requires stopping the panning operation based on a determination that a camera-detected target is not identical to a target registered in a database based on target data obtained from another device. Applicant further argues that Wada neither compares a camera-detected target with target data obtained from another device nor controls camera panning based on whether the detected target corresponds to a previously registered target.
The Examiner agrees that Wada, when considered individually, does not expressly teach determining that a camera-detected target does not correspond to target information obtained from another sensor. However, Applicant's argument is not persuasive because the rejection does not rely upon Wada for teaching this determination. Rather, Matsushige teaches matching a recognition result obtained by image analysis with radar information and expressly teaches a condition in which an object recognized by image analysis does not correspond to an object detected by radar. In particular, Matsushige teaches (Paragraph [0035]) that “the corresponding water object is not detected in the radar 3 (there is no information matching the radar information 16)”. Matsushige further teaches that the image-analysis result can be supplemented or corrected based on the radar information. Thus, Matsushige, rather than Wada, is relied upon for teaching the cross-sensor matching and determination of a camera-detected object for which corresponding radar information is absent.
Further, Wada is relied upon for the camera-control response to a detected object, rather than for the claimed cross-sensor determination. Wada teaches (Col. 9, line(s) 54-63) that “At first, the controller 70 stops the auto tracing of the composite camera 61, then shifts the camera 61 into a still monitoring operation,” and subsequently controls panning and tilting “so as to set the motion point in the center of the screen,” thereby focusing the camera on the detected object. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply Wada's known camera-control technique to the unmatched camera-detected object identified by Matsushige so that the automatic camera movement is stopped and the detected object remains within the camera's field of view for continued observation and recognition, thereby permitting the unmatched object to be more accurately observed and reducing the likelihood that the object would be missed during continued automatic monitoring.
Applicant additionally argues that the proposed combination would require a “fundamental change” in the operational principle of Wada because Wada fixes the camera position in response to abnormality detection, whereas the claimed invention fixes the camera position in response to an unregistered target determination, and further characterizes the rejection as an impermissible hindsight reconstruction. This argument is not persuasive because the proposed combination does not require Wada to perform Matsushige's cross-sensor determination or otherwise alter Wada's camera-control technique. Wada's camera-control technique continues to perform its disclosed function of stopping automatic tracing and maintaining a detected object for further observation. Matsushige likewise continues to perform its disclosed function of correlating camera-image recognition results with radar information and identifying a camera-recognized object for which corresponding radar information is absent. The proposed modification merely applies Wada's known camera-control technique to the condition already identified by Matsushige. Accordingly, the rejection is based on the express teachings of the cited references and the predictable use of Wada's known camera-control technique in Matsushige's monitoring system, rather than on Applicant's disclosure as a blueprint for reconstruction.
Thus, the argued features are written such that they read upon the cited references. Therefore, the previous rejection still applies.
Furthermore, Applicant’s amendment concerning machine learning based target detection have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection in view of Matsushige et al (JP 6236549 B1) in view of Wada et al (US 6714236 B1), further in view of Chen et al (US 2019/0130580 A1).
Office Action Summary
Claim(s) 12-16 is/are cancelled.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8-11, 17-18, and 20-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsushige et al (JP 6236549 B1; See translation provided by Examiner) in view of Chen et al (US 2019/0130580 A1), further in view of Wada et al (US 6714236 B1).
Claim(s) 5-7 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsushige et al (JP 6236549 B1; See translation provided by Examiner) in view of Chen et al (US 2019/0130580 A1) and Wada et al (US 6714236 B1), further in view of Krahnstoever et al (US 2009/0304230 A1).
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, 8-11, 17-18, and 20-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsushige et al (JP 6236549 B1; See translation provided by Examiner) in view of Chen et al (US 2019/0130580 A1), further in view of Wada et al (US 6714236 B1).
Regarding claim(s) 1, 17, and 18, Matsushige teaches 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”);
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 at least one of a camera different from the camera, a radar, and an AIS (Automatic Identification System) 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 [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 [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”; and 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 [0035]: “in the second-stage screen, the frame at the left end of the screen due to misrecognition displayed is deleted because the corresponding water object is not detected in the radar 3 (there is no information matching the radar information 16)”).
Matsushige fails to teach detect a target included in the image by calculating a region of the target included in the image, a type of the target, and a reliability of estimation using a learned model generated in advance by machine learning, or recognizing the region, the type and the reliability of the target included in the image by a rule base; and stop the panning operation 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.
However, Chen teaches detect a target included in the image by calculating a region of the target included in the image, a type of the target, and a reliability of estimation using a learned model generated in advance by machine learning, or recognizing the region, the type and the reliability of the target included in the image by a rule base (Paragraph [0207]: “The complex object detection can be based on application of a trained classification network (e.g., a deep learning network) to classify and localize the relevant objects”; Paragraph [0264]: “the process 1800 includes determining a first set of one or more bounding regions for a video frame based on a trained classification network applied to the video frame […] one or more bounding region is associated with an object classification, the object classification indicating a category of an object associated with the bounding region […] one or more bounding region is associated with a confidence level. The confidence level indicates a likelihood that the object associated with the bounding region includes the category”; and Paragraph [0217]: “By applying the trained neural network, the deep learning system 1208 can generate and output classifications and confidence levels (also referred to as confidence values) for each object detected in a key frame […] the deep learning system 1208 may provide detector bounding boxes 1323 for a key frame, along with a category classification and a confidence level (CL) associated with each detector bounding box […] The confidence level for an object indicates a likelihood […] that the object is of a particular category”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Matsushige's image-recognition technique with Chen's trained machine-learning/deep-learning object-detection technique in order to more accurately classify and localize objects detected in the camera image and to provide a confidence level associated with the object classification, thereby improving the accuracy of object detection and recognition. The motivation for this combination of references would have been to improve object-detection and tracking accuracy, because Chen expressly teaches that the trained classification network is used “to classify and localize the relevant objects” and provides object detection and tracking with “high-accuracy”. This motivation for the combination of Matsushige and Chen 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).
Matsushige and Chen fail to teach stop the panning operation 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.
However, Wada teaches sequentially acquire an image including a marine view captured by a camera during a panning operation (Col. 8, line(s) 55-64: “The operator, after entering an ID for specifying an auto tracing operation […] specifies, for example, ID1 for ‘South Entrance Hall’ registered in the preset table 88 […] so as to turn the camera in the direction and observe the picture for a predetermined time. Next, the operator specifies ID2 for ‘Elevator Hall, Left’ registered in the preset table 88 so as 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”); and
stop the panning operation 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”; Col. 5, lines 8-9: “a memory 78 for storing registered information”; and Col. 9, line(s) 54-61: “At first, the controller 70 stops the auto tracing of the composite camera 61, then shifts the camera 61 into a still monitoring operation. The controller 70 then transfers the motion point detected from the monitored pictures to the composite camera 61 […] The composite camera 61 controls both panning and tilting so as to set the motion point in the center of the screen. The composite camera is thus focused on the object in the center of the screen”).
Matsushige as modified by Chen teaches detecting and recognizing a target from a marine camera image using a trained machine-learning/deep-learning network that determines a bounding region, an object category, and a confidence level associated with the detected object, and Matsushige further teaches matching the camera-based image-recognition result with radar information and determining when a corresponding water object is not detected by the radar, i.e., when “there is no information matching the radar information 16.” Matsushige as modified by Chen fails to explicitly teach stopping the panning operation of the camera with the detected target included in an angle of view in response to the determination that the detected target does not correspond to the target represented by the radar information. However, Wada teaches stopping an automatic camera tracing operation, shifting the camera into a still monitoring operation, transferring the detected motion point to the camera, and controlling the panning and tilting of the camera so as to set the detected motion point in the center of the screen and maintain focus on the detected object.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Matsushige as modified by Chen with Wada's camera-control technique so that, when Matsushige determines that a camera-detected object has no corresponding matching radar information, the automatic camera movement is stopped and the detected object is maintained within the camera's field of view for continued observation and recognition. Such a modification would have predictably allowed an unmatched or unidentified object detected during automatic monitoring to be more accurately observed and prevented the object from being missed as the camera continued its automatic monitoring operation. The motivation for this combination of references would have been to improve the accuracy of object detection and recognition using Chen's trained classification network and, once an object requiring further observation is identified, to ensure that the object is continuously and accurately observed by applying Wada's teaching of stopping automatic tracing, shifting to still monitoring, and maintaining the detected point in the center of the camera view.
Regarding claim(s) 2, Matsushige as modified by Chen and Wada teaches the target monitoring device according to claim 1, where Wada teaches wherein the processing circuitry 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”; and Col. 9, line(s) 54-61: “At first, the controller 70 stops the auto tracing of the composite camera 61, then shifts the camera 61 into a still monitoring operation. The controller 70 then transfers the motion point detected from the monitored pictures to the composite camera 61 […] The composite camera 61 controls both panning and tilting so as to set the motion point in the center of the screen. The composite camera is thus focused on the object in the center of the 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 Chen and Wada teaches the target monitoring device according to claim 1, where Matsushige teaches wherein the processing circuitry 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”; Col. 5, lines 8-9: “a memory 78 for storing registered information”; and Col. 9, line(s) 54-61: “At first, the controller 70 stops the auto tracing of the composite camera 61, then shifts the camera 61 into a still monitoring operation. The controller 70 then transfers the motion point detected from the monitored pictures to the composite camera 61 […] The composite camera 61 controls both panning and tilting so as to set the motion point in the center of the screen. The composite camera is thus focused on the object in the center of the screen”).
Regarding claim(s) 8-11 and 20-23, Matsushige as modified by Chen and Wada teaches the target monitoring device according to claim 1, where Wada teaches wherein the processing circuitry 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”; Col. 9, line(s) 54-61: “At first, the controller 70 stops the auto tracing of the composite camera 61, then shifts the camera 61 into a still monitoring operation. The controller 70 then transfers the motion point detected from the monitored pictures to the composite camera 61 […] The composite camera 61 controls both panning and tilting so as to set the motion point in the center of the screen. The composite camera is thus focused on the object in the center of the 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 […]”).
Claim(s) 5-7 and 19 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 and 19, Matsushige as modified by Chen and Wada teaches the target monitoring device according to claim 1, where Wada teaches wherein the processing circuitry (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”; Col. 5, lines 8-9: “a memory 78 for storing registered information”; and Col. 9, line(s) 54-61: “At first, the controller 70 stops the auto tracing of the composite camera 61, then shifts the camera 61 into a still monitoring operation. The controller 70 then transfers the motion point detected from the monitored pictures to the composite camera 61 […] The composite camera 61 controls both panning and tilting so as to set the motion point in the center of the screen. The composite camera is thus focused on the object in the center of the screen”).
Matsushige, Chen 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, Chen, 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, Chen, 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
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 JONGBONG NAH whose telephone number is (571)272-1361. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 7:30am - 4:30pm.
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, Edward Urban can be reached on 571-272-7899. 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