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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, and 10-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma et al. (CN209402620U) in view of Forsen (EP3336782A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ma discloses a system intended to be used in an animal husbandry, wherein a group of animals can move about freely in an area, the system comprising; monitoring and analyzing means (note camera described throughout the translated text) configured for repeatedly generating images and gathering data therefrom regarding at least one mobile being and/or object in the area (note object D in Fig. 11); illumination means (1) provided with a number of illumination elements, each illumination element being arranged for illuminating at least a subarea of the area (note Figs. 10 and 11); and control means (3) connected to the monitoring and analyzing means and to the illumination means, wherein the monitoring and analyzing means are configured for determining an image quality value for each generated image and for detecting an insufficient image quality due to an unsuitable illumination intensity in at least one of the subareas (note paragraph bridging in between pages 13 and 14 of the translated text), wherein the control means are configured for adjusting said unsuitable illumination intensity in said subarea to a suitable illumination intensity, so that the image quality becomes sufficient (note paragraph bridging in between pages 14 and 15 of the translated text).
Ma does not disclose that the system is provided with localization means for the at least one mobile being and/or the object in the area, the control means being configured for controlling the illumination element(s), in response to localization data from the localization means, so that a selected mobile being and/or object in the area is illuminated with a suitable illumination intensity. However, in middle paragraph of page 15 of the translated text, Ma discloses that a person in motion is being monitored or tracked but without detail how the tracking is being carried out. Forsen, from the similar field of endeavor, teaches such tracking system (note tracking server 170, Figs. 5, 6 and 7). The tracking system detects a moving object is still or in motion (note step s160 in Fig. 6), which meets the localization means as claimed. Thus, knowing that an object tracking means is needed in Ma, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Forsen into Ma to perform the well known localization functions as claimed.
Regarding claim 2, Ma does not disclose that the monitoring and analyzing means are configured for tracking the at least one mobile being and/or the object in the area by means of tracking data gathered from the repeatedly generated images as claimed. However, in middle paragraph of page 15 of the translated text, Ma discloses that a person in motion is being monitored or tracked but without detail how the tracking is being carried out. Forsen, from the similar field of endeavor, teaches such tracking system (note tracking server 170, Figs. 5 and 6). Thus, knowing that an object tracking means is needed in Ma, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Forsen into Ma to perform the well known object tracking as claimed.
Regarding claim 3, Ma discloses that the at least one mobile being and/or the object in the area comprises an animal. That is, the object being monitored can be anything, including a person or an animal.
Regarding claim 4, Ma discloses that the at least one mobile being and/or the object in the area comprises a vehicle. That is, the object being monitored can be anything, including a person or a vehicle.
Regarding claim 5, Ma discloses at least one of the illumination elements is suitable for illuminating a moveable subarea of the area (note the walking person d Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 6, Ma discloses all the feature as claimed except in response to the tracking data from the monitoring and analyzing means, in such a way that the tracked mobile being and/or object in the area is being substantially continuously illuminated with a suitable illumination intensity. However, in middle paragraph of page 15 of the translated text, Ma discloses that a person in motion is being monitored or tracked but without detail how the tracking is being carried out. Forsen, from the similar field of endeavor, teaches such tracking system (note tracking server, Figs. 5 and 6). Thus, knowing that an object tracking means is needed in Ma, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Forsen into Ma to perform the well known object tracking and illuminating functions as claimed.
Regarding claim 7, Ma discloses the vehicle is provided with reflector means. That is, all vehicles inherently include reflector means.
Regarding claim 10, Ma does not disclose that the system is provided with event detection means for detecting specific events related to the at least one mobile being and/or object in the area, the control means being configured for controlling the illumination element(s), in response to data from the event detection means, in such a way that mobile beings and/or objects in the area which are involved in the detected event are illuminated with a suitable illumination intensity. However, in middle paragraph of page 15 of the translated text, Ma discloses that a person in motion is being monitored or tracked but without detail how the tracking is being carried out. Forsen, from the similar field of endeavor, teaches such tracking system (note tracking server 170, Figs. 5 and 6, and par. 35). That is, in paragraph 35, Forsen discloses an event detecting means for detecting livestock ailments by using the collected data. Thus, knowing that an object tracking means is needed in Ma, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Forsen into Ma to perform the well known event detection as claimed.
Regarding claims 11-16, see similar rejections as set forth above.
Regarding claim 17, see similar rejection as set forth above.
Claim(s) 8, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma et al. (CN209402620U).
Regarding claims 8, and 18-20, Ma does not disclose that the vehicle is provided with navigation means, the control means being configured for calibrating the navigation means. The examiner takes Official Notice that using camera and lighting control means to calibrate a vehicle navigation means is well known in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the camera and lighting control means in Ma to calibrate the navigation means in a vehicle.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/31/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
Forsen's tracking server 170 is used to detect if an object is still or in motion for activity monitoring. It is noted that the tracking in Forsen is only by means of the camera and the images it generates. It does not teach or suggest using that motion data as a real- time input to drive an illumination system. Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits that even if one skilled in the art were to combine Ma and Forsen, the result would be a system that tracks motion as taught in Forsen and a system that fixes blurry pictures as taught in Ma. Neither of Ma and Forsen teach or suggest a control means that uses localization identity/position as the trigger to target illumination for a selected subject.
The examiner disagrees. In paragraph bridging in between pages 18 and 19, Ma teaches that monitoring position of the object is being carried out by a camera module 1. That is, the camera module 1 is tracking the position of the moving object. In other words, Ma teaches that an object tracking system can be used as the illumination control. Forsen teaches a well known object tracking system based on motion of the object (note pages 12 and 13 of the translated text). Thus, based on the teaching of Ma, it would have been obvious to incorporate Forsen into Ma to perform the well known functions as claimed. It should be noted that the collected tracking data mentioned in pages 12 and 13 also includes RFID data as described in pages 13 and 14.
Applicant argues:
Applicant notes that Forsen merely teaches detecting if an object is in motion, which is different from localizing and selecting a specific individual among a group of mobile being and/or object. Forsen provides a state of moving or still, but lacks the spatial coordinate or identity data required to select and illuminate a specific subarea for a selected mobile being.
The examiner disagrees. It is well known that motion detection by a camera is spatial based. That is, in a motion tracking system, the location of the object being tracked is determined in every frame. The position of location of the object in the frame clearly meets the localization limitation as claimed.
Applicant argues:
Applicant notes that Ma explicitly states that its improvement provides a simple, yet efficient and automated enhancement and that no additional sensors are needed. It is submitted that integrating Forsen's complex tracking server 170 and its associated communication infrastructure would directly contradict Ma's teaching of a sensor-light, simplified system. Therefore, there is no motivation, other than impermissible hindsight, to complicate Ma's system with Forsen's motion-monitoring server.
The examiner disagrees. As aforementioned, Ma clearly teaches that video camera object tracking system can be used, and Forsen teaches the well known object tracking system. Thus, the combination of Ma and Forsen clearly meets the broadly claimed “localization” limitations as claimed.
In view of above arguments, it is clear that applicant fails to overcome the prior rejections. As a result, the rejections are maintained.
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 MICHAEL LEE whose telephone number 571-272-7349. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday from 9:00 am to 6:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, John Miller, can be reached on 571-272-7353. 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).
/MICHAEL LEE/ Primary Examiner,
Art Unit 2422
Prosecution Insights