DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to claims 1-20 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. The rejections are necessitated due to claim amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine,
manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 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, claims 1-20 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 20.
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 machine since the claim is directed to image pick0up system.
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 1 limitation of a setting unit that sets a first range including a three dimensional spatial region in the real space [mental process]; obtaining unit that obtains a position and a posture of the first camera [mental process]; determines whether an object included in the image picked up by the first camera is included in the first range based on the position and the posture of the first camera [mental process]; the image processing selected depending upon a result of determination by the determination unit [mental process], are directed to an abstract. The claim is related to mental process by having a person to determine a range, determine whether there is an object in the range, select which process/software/app to use for processing the image.
If/when 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 additional claim limitations a first camera that picks up an image of an object arranged in a real space [data gathering] is nothing more than insignificant extra solution activity.
performs image processing on the image picked up by the first camera nothing more than manipulating data (processing) without using a specific technic.
the controller, image processor, an obtaining unit, and camera are used to generally apply the abstract idea without limiting how it functions.
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.
Furthermore, the generic computer components or machine learning algorithm of the processor/memory recited as performing generic computer or machine learning functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system.
The Examiner finds that Claims 2-19 does not state significantly more since the claim only recites additional steps for analyzing an image using a control unit.
Thus, claims 1-20 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, all claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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.
Claims 1 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gopinath et al. (Pub. No. US 2009/0015670) in view of LAI (Pub. No. US 2020/0257821).
Regarding claim 1, Gopinath teaches an image pick-up system comprising: a first camera that picks up an image of an object arranged in a real space [Para. 2 “an Tilt Zoom (PTZ) dome cameras rotate, tilt and zoom during operation to provide surveillance of an area. These PTZ cameras provide images which are displayed on a screen or monitor or other display device. When the camera is operating, there is often a need to mask "privacy zones", or specific areas or objects within the field of view of the camera.]”; a controller, wherein the controller includes a setting unit (NOD (next generation Dome) firmware) that sets a first range including a three-dimensional spatial region (3D privacy zone space) in the real space [Para. 84 “one embodiment of the present invention can be implemented using NOD (Next Generation Dome) firmware which is able to define thirty two privacy zones simultaneously, and to display a maximum of eight privacy zones on the screen.”; Para. 7 “The algorithm developed to solve this problem is based on geometry which aims to remember the defined privacy zones as an area in space marked by four rays touching the four corners of the marked zone and having absolute Pan, Tilt angular coordinates”; Para. 22 “It may happen that the previously defined 3D privacy zone space may have complete overlap, partial overlap or no overlap with the current screen display.”].
obtaining unit that obtains a posture (pan angel, tilt angle, and zoom position) of the first camera [Para. 25 “For the new screen, at any instant of time, the known information is the Pan angle, Tilt angle and the Zoom position. When the new screen is displayed, the privacy zone must be redrawn on it.”].
however, Gopinath doesn’t teach obtaining unit that obtains a position of the first camera.
LAI teaches obtaining unit that obtains a position (current position) of the first camera [Para. 11 “A mobile robot in the disclosure mainly refers to a mobile intelligent robot equipped with a camera and capable of video monitoring”; Para. 23 “a current position and a current direction of the mobile robot in the map are determined on the basis of positioning data of the mobile robot”; and Para. 30 “An XY axis coordinate system is established with the position of the camera as an origin, coordinates of the origin being (X0, Y0).”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Gopinath’s PTZ privacy zone masking system by incorporating Lai’s determination of the mobile camera’s position (current position) from positioning data and using that position with Gopinath’s posture when translating the privacy zone into each captured image. This modification reduces exposure of the object intended to remain hidden.
Gopinath teaches a determination unit that determines whether an object included in the image picked up by the first camera is included in the first range based on posture (pan angle, tilt angle) of the first camera [Para. 25 “For the new screen, at any instant of time, the known information is the Pan angle, Tilt angle and the Zoom position.”; Para. 86 “In Step 2, check each privacy zone to see if it has any overlap with the screen, such that the privacy zone should be displayed on the screen”], and
However, Gopinath doesn’t explicitly teach a determination unit that determines whether an object included in the image picked up by the first camera is included in the first range based on the position of the first camera.
LAI teaches determination unit that determines whether an object included in the image picked up by the first camera is included in the first range based on the position (current position) of the first camera [Para. 23 “A current position and a current direction of the mobile robot in the map are determined on the basis of positioning data of the mobile robot. On the basis of the current position and the current direction, a shooting area covered by the shooting angle of the camera of the mobile robot in the map is determined.”; Para. 23 “If the shooting area contains the one or more private area, it is determined that an image shot currently contains private contents.” And Para. 25 “The image shown in FIG. 3 is the image shot by the mobile robot in FIG. 2. A gray portion 206 is the content corresponding to the shielded private area.”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Gopinath’s privacy zone overlap and hit_flag logic by incorporating Lai’s map-based determination, using position together with posture. This medication improves preventing private image content from becoming visible as the camera moves.
an image processor that performs image processing on the image picked up by the first camera, the image processing selected depending upon a result of determination (hit_flag) by the determination unit [Para. 84 “The following steps outline how multiple privacy zones are to be updated in real time in the processor”; Para. 91 “The privacy zones which have hit_flag as TRUE are further considered and the ones with hit_flag as FALSE are not considered anymore for the current screen mapping of privacy zones.”; Para. 92 “In Step 4, the privacy zones are drawn using pixel maps (and pixel coordinates translated in Step 2). Rectangular fills of each zone is done”].
Claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claims 2 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gopinath et al. (Pub. No. US 2009/0015670) in view of LAI (Pub. No. US 2020/0257821) further in view of Systrom et al. (Pub. No. US 2014/0078172).
Regarding claim 2, Gopinath teaches wherein the image processor is configured to perform mask processing (redrawing a masked area or blacking rectangle/quadrilateral) on the image (video display) picked up by the first camera, aiming at an object [Para. 21].
However, Gopinath in view of LAI doesn’t explicitly teach object determined as not being included in the first range by the determination unit.
Systrom teaches object determined as not being included in the first range (area in the image to emphasize) by the determination unit (rest of the image) [Para. 2 “some existing image processing applications offer a post-processing feature to mimic the effects of a shallow DOF. After a picture is taken and stored to disk, the user selects an area in the image to emphasize (e.g., by drawing a boundary box using the mouse), and the software applies blurring effects to the rest of the image”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Gopinath in view of LAI to teach the claim limitation, feature as taught by Systrom; because the modification enables the system to achieve mask processing that targets portions outside a selected rage while maintaining a selected range unmasked.
Regarding claim 19, Gopinath in view of LAI doesn’t explicitly teach the claim limitation.
However, Systrom teaches further comprising a display device, wherein the controller is configured to have the display device show the image resulting from the mask processing by the image processor [fig. 2, 3 and related description].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Gopinath in view of LAI to teach the claim limitation, feature as taught by Systrom; because the modification enables the system to achieve mask processing that targets portions outside a selected rage while maintaining a selected range unmasked.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gopinath et al. (Pub. No. US 2009/0015670) in view of LAI (Pub. No. US 2020/0257821) further in view of CHEN et al. (Pub. No. US 2010/0075343).
Regarding claim 3, Gopinath in view of LAI doesn’t explicitly teach the claim limitation.
However, CHEN teaches wherein the first camera includes an inertial sensor [Para. 32], and the obtaining unit is configured to obtain based on a detection value (measurement) from the inertial sensor, the posture of the first camera with respect to the posture of the first camera at camera (upon system startup) time of setting of the first range [Para. 42 and 53].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Gopinath in view of LAI to teach the claim limitation, feature as taught by CHEN; because the modification enables the system to achieve inertial measurement-based camera pose changes relative to an initial pose for use in updating privacy zone placement during camera movement.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gopinath et al. (Pub. No. US 2009/0015670) in view of LAI (Pub. No. US 2020/0257821) further in view of Lao et al. (Pub. No. US 2004/0208114).
Regarding claim 4, Gopinath in view of LAI doesn’t explicitly teach the claim limitation.
However, Lao teaches wherein the first camera includes a position sensor [Para. 147], and the obtaining unit is configured to obtain the position of the first camera based on a detection value (detection data) from the position sensor [Para. 147].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Gopinath in view of LAI to teach the claim limitation, feature as taught by Lao; because the modification enables the system to capture using sensor-based position information for the camera while performing the privacy zone masking operations.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gopinath et al. (Pub. No. US 2009/0015670) in view of LAI (Pub. No. US 2020/0257821) further in view of Trajkovic (Pub. No. US 20020167537).
Regarding claim 5, Gopinath teaches wherein the obtaining unit is configured to obtain at least one of the positions and the posture of the first camera [Para. 94].
However, Gopinath in view of LAI doesn’t explicitly teach the rest of claim limitation.
Trajkovic teaches it is based on an amount of change (movement) of the position in the image of the object (feature point) included in the image picked up by the first camera [Para. 4, 8, and 9].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Gopinath in view of LAI to teach the claim limitation, feature as taught by Trajkovic; because the modification enables the system to improves motion-based tracking for a non-stationary camera by compensating for unknown field of view changes via image alignment to minimize camera motion artifacts.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gopinath et al. (Pub. No. US 2009/0015670) in view of LAI (Pub. No. US 2020/0257821) further in view of Trajkovic (Pub. No. US 20020167537) further in view of Chandraker et al. (Pub. No. US 20140078258).
Regarding claim 6, Gopinath in view of LAI further in view of Trajkovic doesn’t explicitly teach the claim limitation.
However, Chandraker teaches wherein the obtaining unit is configured to obtain the position and the posture of the first camera based on at least one of a visual simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM) technology, a structure from motion (SfM) technology, and a visual odometry (VO) technology [Para. 3, 5, 18, and 26].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Gopinath in view of LAI further in view of Trajkovic to teach the claim limitation, feature as taught by Chandraker; because the modification enables the system to improves motion-based tracking for a non-stationary camera by compensating for unknown field of view changes via image alignment to minimize camera motion artifacts.
Claims 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gopinath et al. (Pub. No. US 2009/0015670) in view of LAI (Pub. No. US 2020/0257821) further in view of Goto et al. (Pub. No. US 2015/0070389).
Regarding claim 7, Gopinath in view of LAI doesn’t explicitly teach the claim limitations.
Goto teaches wherein the obtaining unit is configured to extract a marker included in the image and obtains the position and the posture of the first camera based on an amount of change from a reference shape of the marker [Para. 133].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Gopinath in view of LAI to teach the claim limitation, feature as taught by Goto; because the modification enables the system to improves motion-based tracking for a non-stationary camera by compensating for unknown field of view changes via image alignment to minimize camera motion artifacts.
Regarding claim 8, Gopinath in view of LAI doesn’t explicitly teach the claim limitations.
Goto teaches a second camera that picks up an image of the first camera, wherein the obtaining unit is configured to obtain the position and the posture of the first camera based on an amount of change from a reference shape of the first camera included in the image picked up by the second camera [Para. 22, 34 and 44].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Gopinath in view of LAI to teach the claim limitation, feature as taught by Goto; because the modification enables the system to improves motion-based tracking for a non-stationary camera by compensating for unknown field of view changes via image alignment to minimize camera motion artifacts.
Regarding claim 9, Gopinath doesn’t explicitly teach the claim limitations.
Goto teaches wherein the determination unit is configured to determine whether the object included in the image is included in the first range based on a distance between the object arranged in the real space and the first camera [fig. 2, 3 and related description].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Gopinath in view of LAI to teach the claim limitation, feature as taught by Goto; because the modification enables the system to improves motion-based tracking for a non-stationary camera by compensating for unknown field of view changes via image alignment to minimize camera motion artifacts.
Regarding claim 10, Gopinath in view of LAI doesn’t explicitly teach the claim limitations.
Goto teaches a distance sensor that detects the distance between the object arranged in the real space and the first camera [fig. 2, 3 and related description].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Gopinath in view of LAI to teach the claim limitation, feature as taught by Goto; because the modification enables the system to improves motion-based tracking for a non-stationary camera by compensating for unknown field of view changes via image alignment to minimize camera motion artifacts.
Regarding claim 11, Gopinath in view of LAI doesn’t explicitly teach the claim limitations.
Goto teaches wherein the controller is configured to estimate the distance between the object arranged in the real space and the first camera based on an estimation model generated by machine learning and the image picked up by the first camera [fig. 3 and related description].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Gopinath in view of LAI to teach the claim limitation, feature as taught by Goto; because the modification enables the system to improves motion-based tracking for a non-stationary camera by compensating for unknown field of view changes via image alignment to minimize camera motion artifacts.
Claims 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gopinath et al. (Pub. No. US 2009/0015670) in view of LAI (Pub. No. US 2020/0257821) further in view of Pillai et al. (Pub. No. US 2020/0090359).
Regarding claim 12, Gopinath in view of LAI doesn’t explicitly teach the claim limitations.
However, Pillai teaches wherein the determination unit is configured to determine whether or not the object included in the image picked up by the first camera is included in the first range based on the position and the posture of the first camera [Para. 9, 10, 33 and 37].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Gopinath in view of LAI to teach the claim limitation, feature as taught by Pillai; because the modification enables the system to improves monocular distance estimation by using a machine learning disparity model to produce more accurate depth estimates of objects from a single picked up image.
Regarding claim 13, Gopinath in view of LAI doesn’t explicitly teach the claim limitations.
However, Pillai teaches an input device, wherein the input device is configured to accept position information of the first range with respect to the position and the posture of the first camera obtained by the obtaining unit, and the setting unit is configured to set the first range based on the position information of the first range [Para. 9, 12, and 23].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Gopinath in view of LAI to teach the claim limitation, feature as taught by Pillai; because the modification enables the system to improves monocular distance estimation by using a machine learning disparity model to produce more accurate depth estimates of objects from a single picked up image.
Regarding claim 14, Gopinath in view of LAI doesn’t explicitly teach the claim limitations.
However, Pillai teaches an input device, wherein the controller is configured to detect a plane perpendicular to a vertical direction in the image picked up by the first camera, and when a coordinate in an image inputted by a user is included in the detected plane, the setting unit is configured to set as the first range, a region defined based on the coordinate [Para. 14, 33, and 49].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Gopinath in view of LAI to teach the claim limitation, feature as taught by Pillai; because the modification enables the system to improves monocular distance estimation by using a machine learning disparity model to produce more accurate depth estimates of objects from a single picked up image.
Regarding claim 15, Gopinath doesn’t explicitly teach the claim limitations.
However, Pillai teaches wherein the setting unit is configured to extract a marker included in the image and sets the first range based on an amount of change from a reference shape of the marker [Para. 11, 35 and 38].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Gopinath in view of LAI to teach the claim limitation, feature as taught by Pillai; because the modification enables the system to improves monocular distance estimation by using a machine learning disparity model to produce more accurate depth estimates of objects from a single picked up image.
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gopinath et al. (Pub. No. US 2009/0015670) in view of LAI (Pub. No. US 2020/0257821) further in view of Romanowich (Pub. No. US 2008/0084473).
Regarding claim 16, Gopinath in view of LAI doesn’t explicitly teach the claim limitations.
However, Romanowich teaches comprising a storage, wherein specifying information representing the real space is stored in the storage, and the setting unit is configured to set the first range based on the specifying information [Para. 31-33].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Gopinath in view of LAI to teach the claim limitation, feature as taught by Romanowich; because the modification enables the system to improves surveillance response and situational awareness by having a smart camera store a map of the monitored area and provide a corresponding map portion.
Regarding claim 17, Gopinath doesn’t explicitly teach the claim limitations.
However, Romanowich teaches wherein the controller is configured to create the specifying information based on a visual simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM) technology or a structure from motion (SfM) technology [Para. 31, 43 and 45].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Gopinath in view of LAI to teach the claim limitation, feature as taught by Romanowich; because the modification enables the system to improves surveillance response and situational awareness by having a smart camera store a map of the monitored area and provide a corresponding map portion.
Regarding claim 18, Gopinath in view of LAI doesn’t explicitly teach the claim limitations.
However, Romanowich teaches wherein the setting unit is configured to change the first range that has been set based on an input from a user [Para 31 and 42].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Gopinath in view of LAI to teach the claim limitation, feature as taught by Romanowich; because the modification enables the system to improves surveillance response and situational awareness by having a smart camera store a map of the monitored area and provide a corresponding map portion.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOLOMON G BEZUAYEHU whose telephone number is (571)270-7452. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 10 AM-8 PM.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 888-786-0101 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-4000.
/SOLOMON G BEZUAYEHU/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2666
Prosecution Insights