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 with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The examiner notes the claims have been further amended to included limitations from previous claim 2, plus the limitation “placed”.
Based upon the additional features, the examiner newly evidences, Dingli,. US 20200298801 which discloses a system which includes placing cameras in a vehicle, where a first camera and 2nd camera may be positioned such that the FOV includes the other camera which then can identify tampering with the other cameras (para 06, 16).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s)1, 3-4, 14-15 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mittleman et al., US 20210407209 in view of Dingli,. US 20200298801
In considering claim 1,
PNG
media_image1.png
407
728
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Mittleman discloses a system which guides users in the installation of smart-home devices including cameras (para 003, 5-8, Fig 4) which can include home smart camera 118 (Fig 4). Mittleman disclose the system can render a 3D object onto a 2-D view of the environment, where the environment is captured by a user mobile device 166 (Fig 9, 10b/c, 13, 19a/b) where the mobile device acquires a view of the installation location, and determines the suitable installation location/position using the position information of the environment/room and display the position on the display (superimposition). (para 95, 105, 107-113, 115, 117-118, 122-123, 125, 129, 131, 135, 144, 149-154, 156, 159, 163-164, 172, 177, 178, 181-182, 188, 191, 200, 204-206. The instruction/memory may be stored in one or more devices (para 65, 67, 72, 73, 77-79,93 Fig 17)
However Mittleman does not explicitly recite placing the second capture unit at the target position, though discloses the user may capture the environment via a mobile phone, thus from any position the user desired.
(from previous claim 2, without the “placed at” MIttleman disclose a system where the user can take a picture of the room the camera will be installed.
Mittleman does not explicitly recite taking a picture from the same location where the camera will be installed, although does disclose that the system can see the FOV of any detector acting like a naked eye in viewing the environment (para 107), however this is considered an obvious implementation, where users could pre-install a camera and then determine if such location installation was ideal. In some situations you would want the camera visible from the FOV of the target as a deterrent and wherein some instance you would want the camera hidden (to avoid potential tampering (such as can it be seen or not from the FOV of the target) or if any movement/adjustment/positioning of such camera to capture an area/region/FOV.
Principles of Law:
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) and include:
a) combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
b) simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
c) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
d) applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results:
e) “obvious to try”—choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
f) known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art; and
g) some teaching, suggestion, 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 teaching to arrive at the claimed invention.
As noted by the PTAB recent decision (12 July 2022):
“"The correct legal framework for obviousness does not involve divining the intention of an inventor of a prior art reference but, rather, involves determining 'what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art”
Microsoft Word - IPR2021-00417 FD - Ready (law360news.com)
The examiner notes in the prior art combination above also in view of KSR (c, e and g) provides expected results as noted above, which allows the user to take a picture of the room/area where a camera will be installed, from any angle/position in the room including from a perspective target position, thus providing the user the ability/flexibility to capture images from anywhere in the room to ensure optimum camera installation, in addition allowing the user/system to ensure the space (2nd camera directed at position 1st camera) for mounting/placing/installing the 1st camera met desired parameters/conditions, thus being an obvious embodiment to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Additionally,
Regarding the 2nd camera, the examiner notes it is known that camera may oppose each other and capture each other with their own FOV, notably to detect tampering with either camera.
The examiner evidences Dingli,. US 20200298801 which discloses a system which includes placing cameras in a vehicle, where a first camera and 2nd camera may be positioned such that the FOV includes the other camera which then can identify tampering with the other cameras (para 06, 16).
The motivation to modify Mittleman with Dingli would provide the benefit of tampering detection of any cameras that were installed and also provide a FOV of each respective camera which could be used by Mittleman to ensure proper installation using both the position and target viewpoints, thus being an obvious modification to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
In considering claim 3,
Mittleman discloses based upon the installation position determined and the characteristics of the camera (aperture, lens, receivers) can determine the FOV (para 95, 129, 131, 135, 150-151, 156, 159, 163-164).
In considering claim 4,
Mittleman does not explicitly recite a “product shelf”.
Mittleman discloses the invention may be not only in the home but also in retail stores (para 51, 78), where the use of a product shelf would be met, where a shelf typically holds merchandise/items for sale.
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that in a retail setting a product shelf for surveillance, security and/or stocking items may be included in the target position, to ensure such items are available/monitored for security/theft, in addition to an environment where things are stored (home use/business) thus being an obvious modification to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention IAW KSR (a, c, d, e and g).
In considering claim 14,
Mittleman discloses the use of wireless or wired smart devices including cameras (para 3-4, 59, 65, 66, 68, 70, 74, 83, 90-92, 103, 138, 145, 151).
However Mittleman does not explicitly recite the conventional features of a moveable camera, where the examiner notes typically smart-home cameras allows the user to move the camera, whether to change the FOV, follow a subject/object, where such features are notoriously well-known of cameras thus the examiner takes “OFFICIAL NOTICE” regarding such. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify/use in Mittleman a moveable camera to provide the advantages as noted above.
In considering claim 15,
Refer to claim 1,
The second capture unit is met by mobile device 166, which includes a display and where the storage unit may be located in the camera to be installed, mobile device (client) or server side.
In considering claim 18,
Refer to claim 1. Regarding computer(s) (paras 7, 63-64, 82, 84, 92, 107, 111, 113-114 and 144)
In considering claim 19,
Refer to claim 1. Regarding computer medium/computer (paras 7, 63-64, 82, 84, 92, 107, 111, 113-114 and 144)
Claim(s) 5-13 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mittleman et al., US 20210407209, Dingli,. US 20200298801 in view of Altahir et al., “Using Artificial Intelligence Search in Solving Camera Placement Problems” (published Jan 2022).
In considering claim 5,
As noted by Mittleman the system can reposition smart-home devices including cameras and other smart devices in the house (para 128) where the user can be shown a display which ensures the smart devices are captured within a desired field of view.
Mittleman disclose that the system can determine the “best” place to install a smart home device such as a camera (para 182).
Regarding the processor to execute instructions; Mittleman discloses (para 6-7, 80, 92, 114, 125, 217, 220, can be executed by the client or server side, including the camera installed and/or the mobile device (166) used to capture the regions/area for installation.
However, MIttleman/Dingli do not explicitly disclose “constructing learning data”. Although Mittleman discloses a smart-home environment which may learn occupants and devices (para 64).
Nonetheless the examiner incorporates Altahir et al., “Using Artificial Intelligence Search in Solving Camera Placement Problems” (published Jan 2022). (See 1.1.3, 1.2, 1.3, 1.3.3, 1.4, 1.4.1. 1.4.2, 1.4.3, 1.5, 1.6). which discloses AI (learning model) to determine the optimum installation location for cameras, which uses the area of installation and the characteristics of the camera and history of position selected before or not for installation The objective is to maximize the coverage area and to using a camera model and coverage table to optimize installation.
The motivation to modify Mittleman/Dingli with Altahir provides the system/user the ability to optimize camera installation coverage and placement by using AI, which allows the system/user to ensure proper coverage by the use of particular cameras, thus being an obvious modification to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
In considering claim 6,
Mittleman disclose storing position information (see claim 1)
And Altahir also disclose the storing of previous position data (see claim 5).
In considering claim 7,
As noted in claim 6 both MIttleman and Altahir discloses storing position data where Mittleman discloses the location information (GPS coordinates (para 144), coordinates of the home/room (para 110), in addition to using geometric symbols for visualization to indicate location (para 150). Altahir also discloses using the angles, height, width (see nomenclature) in processing/modeling the data.
In considering claim 8,
Mittleman discloses using a system which determines the best location for a camera install from an area coverage captured by the mobile device. Additionally it is known, that camera may be pre-placement before determining the idea position.
As noted by Altahir, the pre-placement of cameras which are used to then optimize the post-placement are known (page 3).
Thus the combination provides the ability to pre-capture FOV of the pre-installed camera (or not) to show the regions covered by the camera if the camera is/was installed there using the information of the cameras (FOV, lens type) to determine the optimum location. The plurality of events can be the different images captured to show the user/system the perspective of the camera if placed in a particular position in the room/building.
Thus the capturing a plurality of events used as detection targets are considered obvious in view of the combination above, which allows the user/system to pre-install camera (or not) and also provide the user/system the view of the preinstalled camera or if the camera was installed to show the area of coverage to ensure an optimum installation.
In considering claim 9,
Refer to claim 8, where the examiner discusses “Plurality of events”.
In considering claim 10,
As noted by Mittleman, the user may request thru the mobile interface 166 a particular camera and its coverage area, which would display the event, where both Mittleman (para 153) and Altahir disclose based upon the coverage area (picture taken of an area or event/object) then determines the optimum position of such camera for installation.
In considering claim 11,
The combination of Mittleman/Altahir discloses displaying, see MIttleman (Fig 17) which indicates where to place the camera and where not to place the camera.
In considering claim 12,
The combination of Mittleman-Dingli/Altahir discloses the pre-placement (Altahir) (or not, Mittleman, para 153), of a camera and the system can determine/decide whether the camera installed is in an ideal location or not, and where to install and where not to install (Fig 17 Mittleman) by using the position information of the room/area.
In considering claim 13,
Both Mittleman (para 153) and Altahir disclose capturing an image of an area a simulating/modeling if the area captured by a camera installed or not installed provides optimum coverage, where Althahir was evidenced above for teaching camera installation using AI (learning).
In considering claim 16,
Refer to claim 5.
Mittleman disclose the system can include one or more connected cameras 118 (para 60, 68, 78, 79, 80, 81, 89).
In considering claim 17,
Refer to claim 8.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure---see newly cited references on attached PTO-892.
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 Brian Yenke whose telephone number is (571)272-7359. The examiner work schedule is Monday-Thursday, 0730-1830 hrs.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s Supervisor, John Miller, can be reached at (571)272-7353.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
Washington, D.C. 20231
or faxed to:
(571)-273-8300
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the Technology Center 2400 Customer Service Office whose telephone number is
(703)305-HELP.
General information about patents, trademarks, products and services offered by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), and other related information is available by contacting the USPTO’s General Information Services Division at:
800-PTO-9199 or 703-308-HELP
(FAX) 703-305-7786
(TDD) 703-305-7785
An automated message system is available 7 days a week, 24 hours a day providing informational responses to frequently asked questions and the ability to order certain documents. Customer service representatives are available to answer questions, send materials or connect customers with other offices of the USPTO from 8:30 a.m. - 8:00p.m. EST/EDT, Monday-Friday excluding federal holidays.
For other technical patent information needs, the Patent Assistance Center can be reached through customer service representatives at the above numbers, Monday through Friday (except federal holidays) from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. EST/EDT.
The Patent Electronic Business Center (EBC) allows USPTO customers to retrieve data, check the status of pending actions, and submit information and applications. The tools currently available in the Patent EBC are Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) and the Electronic Filing System (EFS). PAIR (http://pair.uspto.gov) provides customers direct secure access to their own patent application status information, as well as to general patent information publicly available. EFS allows customers to electronically file patent application documents securely via the Internet. EFS is a system for submitting new utility patent applications and pre-grant publication submissions in electronic publication-ready form. EFS includes software to help customers prepare submissions in extensible Markup Language (XML) format and to assemble the various parts of the application as an electronic submission package. EFS also allows the submission of Computer Readable Format (CRF) sequence listings for pending biotechnology patent applications, which were filed in paper form.
/BRIAN P YENKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2422