Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 22, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1,
(1) applicant states that “Masaru only extracts raw video data (footage) based on the event time. Masaru fails to extract or disclose specific relationship information.”. Examiner disagrees with this statement. Masaru teaches extract (In a case where a plurality of predetermined target objects are detected, the imaging data analysis unit 120 may notify the recording control unit 140 of time information indicating a time point at which each of the target objects is captured in the video. [0029]), from objection relationship information (For example, in a case where a witness of a traffic trouble is searched for from the video of the event recording data, it is preferable that the number of target objects corresponding to the number of candidates of the witness or the number of candidates of the number plate of the vehicle on which the witness may be on board is large. [0058]), one or more pieces of action-related relationshipinformation (For example, in a case where a witness of a traffic trouble is searched for from the video of the event recording data, it is preferable that the number of target objects corresponding to the number of candidates of the witness or the number of candidates of the number plate of the vehicle on which the witness may be on board is large. [0058]).
Response to Amendment
The Amendment of July 22, 2026 overcomes the following objection:
Objection of claim 20 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 18.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 6-11 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Masaru (Japan Patent Pub. No.: JP2021-122102A).
Regarding claim 1, Masaru teaches a relationship extracting apparatus comprising: at least one memory (The memory 151 is configured by, for example, a combination of a volatile memory and a nonvolatile memory. The memory 151 is used to store software (computer program) including one or more commands to be executed by the processor 150, data to be used for various processes of the recording control apparatus 100, and the like. [0020]) that is configured to store instructions (Upon detecting the occurrence of an event, the event detection unit 130 outputs, to the recording control unit 140, an event recording instruction signal for instructing to save the captured data as event recording data. The event recording instruction signal may include the time at which the occurrence of the event is detected. [0028]); and at least one processor (the processor 150 reads software (computer program) from the memory 151 and executes the software [0019]) that is configured to execute the instructions to: acquire event information (The imaging device 200 is, for example, a camera. The imaging device 200 captures an image of the surroundings of the vehicle and generates captured data that is data of the captured image. [0015]) that indicates one or more features (The acceleration sensor 400 detects an acceleration applied to the acceleration sensor 400, and supplies the detected acceleration to the event detection unit 130 of the recording control apparatus 100. [0018]) of an event of interest (The event detection unit 130 detects the occurrence of an event. In the present embodiment, the event specifically refers to a traffic trouble. The traffic trouble includes not only a traffic accident but also dangerous driving such as sudden stop and sudden start. [0026]); determine target duration (FIG. 3 is a schematic diagram illustrating an event record according to a comparative example. Here, it is assumed that an event is detected at time tE. In this case, in the event record according to the comparative example, the captured date in the period from the time tP1 to the time tP2 is stored as the event record date. Here, the time tP1 is a time at a time point traced back by a predetermined time Pl from the time tE at which the event is detected. In addition, the time tP2 is a time at which a predetermined time P2 has elapsed from the time tE at which the event is detected. Here, the predetermined times Pl and P2 are, for example, about several tens of seconds. In a case where such event recording is performed, the captured date of a certain period, that is, a period defined as the sum of Pl and P2 (which reads on the “target duration”) is stored as the event recording date. [0036].
PNG
media_image1.png
318
450
media_image1.png
Greyscale
) based on the one or more features (The acceleration sensor 400 detects an acceleration applied to the acceleration sensor 400, and supplies the detected acceleration to the event detection unit 130 of the recording control apparatus 100. [0018]) of the event of interest (FIG. 3 is a schematic diagram illustrating an event record according to a comparative example. Here, it is assumed that an event is detected at time tE. [0036]), the target duration including, as a part thereof, an event time at which or during which the event of interest occurs (FIG. 3 is a schematic diagram illustrating an event record according to a comparative example. Here, it is assumed that an event is detected at time tE. [0036]); and extract (In a case where a plurality of predetermined target objects are detected, the imaging data analysis unit 120 may notify the recording control unit 140 of time information indicating a time point at which each of the target objects is captured in the video. [0029]), from objection relationship information (For example, in a case where a witness of a traffic trouble is searched for from the video of the event recording data, it is preferable that the number of target objects corresponding to the number of candidates of the witness or the number of candidates of the number plate of the vehicle on which the witness may be on board is large. [0058]), one or more pieces of action-related relationshipinformation (For example, in a case where a witness of a traffic trouble is searched for from the video of the event recording data, it is preferable that the number of target objects corresponding to the number of candidates of the witness or the number of candidates of the number plate of the vehicle on which the witness may be on board is large. [0058]) that indicates an action taken(FIG. 3 is a schematic diagram illustrating an event record according to a comparative example. Here, it is assumed that an event is detected at time tE. [0036]), wherein the object relationship information indicates two or more pieces of the action-related relationshipinformation(Therefore, it is possible to record, as a video, a vehicle on which a witness of the traffic trouble is riding or a vehicle on which a counterpart of the traffic trouble is riding. [0051]) in association with a time at which or during which (In a case where such event recording is performed, the captured date of a certain period, that is, a period defined as the sum of Pl and P2 is stored as the event recording date. [0036]) the action indicated by the action-related relationship information was taken(FIG. 3 is a schematic diagram illustrating an event record according to a comparative example. Here, it is assumed that an event is detected at time tE. [0036]).
Claims 2-3, unamended and are rejected based on Masaru. The grounds of rejection established in the last Office Action is fully incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 6, Masaru teaches the relationship extracting apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the extraction of the action-related relationshipinformation includes extracting (In a case where a plurality of predetermined target objects are detected, the imaging data analysis unit 120 may notify the recording control unit 140 of time information indicating a time point at which each of the target objects is captured in the video. [0029]), from the object relationship information (For example, in a case where a witness of a traffic trouble is searched for from the video of the event recording data, it is preferable that the number of target objects corresponding to the number of candidates of the witness or the number of candidates of the number plate of the vehicle on which the witness may be on board is large. [0058]), one or more pieces of the action-related relationshipinformation (For example, in a case where a witness of a traffic trouble is searched for from the video of the event recording data, it is preferable that the number of target objects corresponding to the number of candidates of the witness or the number of candidates of the number plate of the vehicle on which the witness may be on board is large. [0058]) that indicates an action taken(FIG. 3 is a schematic diagram illustrating an event record according to a comparative example. Here, it is assumed that an event is detected at time tE. [0036]) and that involve an object relevant to the event of interest (For example, in a case where a witness of a traffic trouble is searched for from the video of the event recording data, it is preferable that the number of target objects corresponding to the number of candidates of the witness or the number of candidates of the number plate of the vehicle on which the witness may be on board is large. [0058]).
Regarding claim 7, Masaru teaches the relationship extracting apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the object relationship information is generated by detecting (In a case where a plurality of predetermined target objects are detected, the imaging data analysis unit 120 may notify the recording control unit 140 of time information indicating a time point at which each of the target objects is captured in the video. [0029]) each piecerelationshipinformation from one or more video frames (For example, in a case where a witness of a traffic trouble is searched for from the video of the event recording data, it is preferable that the number of target objects corresponding to the number of candidates of the witness or the number of candidates of the number plate of the vehicle on which the witness may be on board is large. [0058]), and wherein the at least one processor (the processor 150 reads software (computer program) from the memory 151 and executes the software [0019]) is configured to execute the instructions further to: output output information (Upon detecting the occurrence of an event, the event detection unit 130 outputs, to the recording control unit 140, an event recording instruction signal for instructing to save the captured data as event recording data. The event recording instruction signal may include the time at which the occurrence of the event is detected. [0028]) that includes, for each one of the extracted (In a case where a plurality of predetermined target objects are detected, the imaging data analysis unit 120 may notify the recording control unit 140 of time information indicating a time point at which each of the target objects is captured in the video. [0029]) action-related relationshipinformation (For example, in a case where a witness of a traffic trouble is searched for from the video of the event recording data, it is preferable that the number of target objects corresponding to the number of candidates of the witness or the number of candidates of the number plate of the vehicle on which the witness may be on board is large. [0058]), one or more video frames from which the extracted action-related relationship information is detected (Therefore, it is possible to record, as a video, a vehicle on which a witness of the traffic trouble is riding or a vehicle on which a counterpart of the traffic trouble is riding. [0051]).
Regarding claim 8, Masaru teaches the relationship extracting apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the output information (When the event recording instruction signal is output from the event detection unit 130, the recording control unit 140 records the captured data in the event recording unit 320. [0034]) includes, for each piece(In a case where a plurality of predetermined target objects are detected, the imaging data analysis unit 120 may notify the recording control unit 140 of time information indicating a time point at which each of the target objects is captured in the video. [0029]) action-related relationship information (For example, in a case where a witness of a traffic trouble is searched for from the video of the event recording data, it is preferable that the number of target objects corresponding to the number of candidates of the witness or the number of candidates of the number plate of the vehicle on which the witness may be on board is large. [0058]), a specific number of one or more video frames from which the extracted action-related relationship information is detected (In particular, for example, by storing the event recording data so as to include the detection time point of the vehicle reflected after the occurrence of the event, it is possible to store the video for specifying the vehicle that has run away after the traffic trouble. It is also useful in searching for a person who witnessed a situation such as a dispute between parties that occurred after an event was detected. [0041]).
Method claims 9-11 and 14 are drawn to the method of using the corresponding apparatus claimed in claims 1-3 and 6. Therefore method claims 9-11 and 14 correspond to apparatus claims 1-3 and 6 and are rejected for the same reasons of anticipation as used above.
Claims 15-17 are drawn to a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing instructions executable by a processor for executing the method of using the corresponding apparatus as claimed in claims 1-3. Therefore, claims 15-17 correspond to apparatus claims 1-3, and are rejected for the same reasons of anticipation as used above.
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 4, 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masaru (Japan Patent Pub. No.: JP2021-122102A), hereinafter Masaru, in view of Packard (US Patent Pub. No.: US 2016/0105708 A1), hereinafter Packard.
Claim 4, unamended and is rejected based on the combination of Masaru, in view of Packard, hereinafter Packard. The ground of rejection established in the last Office Action is fully incorporated herein.
Method claim 12 is drawn to the method of using the corresponding apparatus claimed in claims 4. Therefore method claim 12 corresponds to apparatus claim 4 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Claim 18 is drawn to a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing instructions executable by a processor for executing the method of using the corresponding apparatus as claimed in claim 4. Therefore, claim 18 corresponds to apparatus claim 4, and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Claims 5, 13 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masaru (Japan Patent Pub. No.: JP2021-122102A), hereinafter Masaru, in view of Packard (US Patent Pub. No.: US 2016/0105708 A1), hereinafter Packard, further in view of Oel (European Patent Publication Number: EP 2567194 B1), hereinafter Oel.
Regarding claim 5, Masaru and Packard teach all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated in claim 4 except for the following limitations as further recited. However, Oel teaches wherein the adjustment factor (Different kinds of system responses which differ from one another in at least one feature are generated depending on the result of the confidence analysis. Abstract) is determined by a parameter (The present invention relates to a method for operating a user interface, in which a first user input is detected, and a confidence analysis is carried out, during which the user input is compared with a plurality of stored database entries and each database entry which is compared in this manner is associated with a value of a confidence measure which assesses the correspondence between the user input and this database entry. Abstract) representing how ambiguous the event of interest is for a user (Such user interfaces are used in particular if it is assumed that recorded data is erroneous either due to incomplete or ambiguous input by the user (which reads on “the event of interest”) or by inaccurate detection by the system, as is the case, for example, with voice input in a noisy environment or with manual input in a vibration disturbed environment Case is. Page 5 3rd paragraph)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Masaru and Packard to incorporate the teachings of Oel to determine the adjustment factor by a parameter representing how ambiguous the event of interest is for a user in order to provide videos that are likely to be of interest to individual viewers.
Method claim 13 is drawn to the method of using the corresponding apparatus claimed in claim 5. Therefore method claim 13 corresponds to apparatus claim 5 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Claim 19 is drawn to a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing instructions executable by a processor for executing the method of using the corresponding apparatus as claimed in claim 5. Therefore, claim 19 corresponds to apparatus claim 5, and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Claim 20 is drawn to a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing instructions executable by a processor for executing the method of using the corresponding apparatus as claimed in claim 6. Therefore, claim 20 corresponds to apparatus claim 6, and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
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 LEI ZHAO whose telephone number is (703)756-1922. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 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, VU LE can be reached at (571)272-7332. 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.
/LEI ZHAO/Examiner, Art Unit 2668
/VU LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2668
