DETAILED ACTION
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 Amendment
1. This office action is in response to communications filed 1/2/2026 Claims 1, 10, 15, 17, and 18 are amended. Claim 2 is original. Claims 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 11, 12, 13, and 16 are previously presented. Claims 7 and 8 are canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks page 7-8, filed 1/2/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) U.S. Patent 10,769,913 Wang have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 10,769,913 Wang et al. (hereinafter Wang).
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.
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.
1. Claim(s) 1, 9, 10, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 10,769,913 Wang et al. (hereinafter Wang).
2. Regarding Claim 1, Wang discloses An image processing apparatus (Title: “Cloud-based Video Surveillance Management system”) comprising:
at least one memory storing instructions (Fig. 8: working memory 235, see Col. 15 lines 29-44); and
at least one processor (Fig. 8: processor(s)) configured to execute the instructions to (See Col. 16 lines 9-12, “processor 210 executing one or more sequences of one or more instructions”):
receive an image acquired by using each of a plurality of cameras (Fig. 1: 12, 14, 16 camera(s), Col. 4 lines 45-48, “Each camera is equipped with an imaging module, that generates images from received light”);
perform first image processing on the received image (Col. 9 Lines 8-11, “The first tier 40 of the system includes edge devices such as routers 20, intelligent encoders and intelligent cameras 42 with embedded video analytics algorithms” Each camera captures video and performs some on-board processing (e.g., compression or basic analytics) These correspond to “first severs.” Col. 9 lines 34-37, “a video analytics algorithm is utilized as a scene analyzer to detect and track objects in the scene and generate metadata to describe the objects and their events”); and
transmit the image on which the first image processing has been performed to a server configured to perform second image processing on the image on which the first image processing has been performed (Fig. 2; Col. 9 lines 12-17, “The first tier 40 of the system connects to the second tier 50 of the system through one or more LANs 32. The second tier 50 of the system is at the gateway of the surveillance system and includes one or more gateway devices 52.” Col. 9 lines 46-49, “The gateway 52 is a storage and processing device in the local network which stores video and metadata content. The gateway can be wholly or in part implemented as a network video recorder or an independent server.”),
wherein the first image processing includes processing of adjusting an image acquired by using each of the plurality of cameras in conformity with a predetermined standard. Wang adjusts acquired images in two ways: compression of the images and the generation of image metadata.
Wang does not explicitly disclose that these adjustments of the images are 'in conformity with a particular standard', but this is not considered to be a patentable distinction. It was notoriously well-known in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to use standard algorithms across devices in a network to ensure conformity to a known standard. Video compression standards were well-stablished in the art as a means to ensure the faithful reproduction of content. Further, the use of a standard video analytics algorithm across all devices would yield predictable results in terms of metadata generation. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to implement Wang with compression and video analytics algorithms that conform to a particular standard for the stated advantages.
3. Regarding Claim 9, Wang discloses An image processing system (Title: “Cloud-based Video Surveillance Management system”) comprising:
one or more first servers each comprising the image processing apparatus (Col. 9 Lines 8-11, “The first tier 40 of the system includes edge devices such as routers 20, intelligent encoders and intelligent cameras 42 with embedded video analytics algorithms” Each camera captures video and performs some on-board processing (e.g., compression or basic analytics) These correspond to “first severs.”) according to claim 1; and
a second server configured to receive an image on which the first image processing has been performed from the first servers, and to perform second image processing on the received image (Fig. 2; Col. 9 lines 12-17, “The first tier 40 of the system connects to the second tier 50 of the system through one or more LANs 32. The second tier 50 of the system is at the gateway of the surveillance system and includes one or more gateway devices 52.” Col. 9 lines 46-49, “The gateway 52 is a storage and processing device in the local network which stores video and metadata content. The gateway can be wholly or in part implemented as a network video recorder or an independent server.”).
4. Regarding Claim 10, Wang discloses The image processing system according to claim 9, wherein the first image processing includes image correction processing (Col. 4 lines 50-53, “compresses the image data using a visual compression algorithm and sends the compressed data over a local connection.” Cameras/encoders perform local pre-processing such as compression to correct or prepare the image date before transmission to the gateway), and
the second image processing includes image analysis processing (Col. 10 lines 4-6 and Col. 6 lines 12-16, “For instance, algorithms such as face detection/recognition and license plate recognition can be executed at the gateway 52 to extract information based on motion detection results from the associated cameras 42”)
5. Regarding Claim 14, Wang discloses The image processing system according to claim 9, wherein
a plurality of the first servers are provided (Fig. 2: describes a plurality of cameras/ encoders at the first tier, each performing local pre-processing (compression, analytics) on its own image stream. Each of those devices functions as a “first server”), and
the second server receives an image on which the first image processing has been performed from the plurality of first servers (Fig. 2: discloses a gateway 52 (second server) that receives image data and metadata from multiple first-tier devices and performs further processing before sending results to the cloud).
6. Regarding Claim 15, Wang discloses The image processing system according to claim 9, wherein
a plurality of sets of the plurality of first servers (Fig. 2: describes a plurality of cameras/ encoders at the first tier, each performing local pre-processing (compression, analytics) on its own image stream. Each of those devices functions as a “first server”)and a plurality of the second servers are provided (Fig. 2: discloses a gateway 52 (second server) that receives image data and metadata from multiple first-tier devices and performs further processing before sending results to the cloud), and
a third server configured to receive a result of the second image processing from the second servers in the plurality of sets is further provided (Col. 9 lines “As a result of metadata filtering and other operations described below, the amount of information sent to the cloud computing server 62 from the gateway 52”).
7. Regarding Claim 16, Wang discloses The image processing system according to claim 9, wherein the second server is a server of a higher layer that supervises the one or more first servers (Fig. 2: the gateway is explicitly described as a higher-layer server that oversees and manages multiple cameras (first servers) see Col. 10 lines 4-67).
8. Claim 17 is a method claim, rejected with respect to the same limitation rejected in system claim 1.
9. Claim 18 is a non-transitory CRM claim, rejected with respect to the same limitation rejected in system claim 1.
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.
10. Claim(s) 2, 3, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 10,769,913 Wang et al. (hereinafter Wang) in view of U.S. Patent Application 2019/0335074, Malkes et al. (hereinafter Malkes).
11. Regarding Claim 2, Wang discloses The image processing apparatus according to claim 1,
However, Wang does not explicitly disclose wherein the first image processing includes image correction processing.
Malkes teaches wherein the first image processing includes image correction processing ([0007], [0015], “A camera captures a reference image during a first environmental condition. Environmental information from sensors or a network source identifies a second environmental condition, during which the camera captures an environment-affected image. An environmental effect affecting the environment-affected image is identified based on a difference between the reference image and the environment-affected image” [0052], “At step 610, an action may be initiated to deter or mitigate effect of the environmental conditions on the images captured by the omnidirectional camera”).
It would have been obvious to a person ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the known technique of performing correction processing on the received image using environment sensor data as taught by Malkes into the first image processing stage as taught in Wang, because both references are directed to improving the quality and reliability of images in distributed processing systems. Doing so would yield predictable benefits: normalizing images before transmission ensures that the subsequent (second server) processing is more accurate and consistent.
12. Regarding Claim 3, Wang in view of Malkes discloses The image processing apparatus according to claim 2,
Malkes discloses wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to correct the received image by using sensor information of an environment sensor in the correction processing ([0051], “At step 608, data of environmental conditions may be obtained from a sensor 132 present in the camera unit.” [0017], “The control system 102 eliminates effects of environmental conditions on images, videos, and/or other visual media captured by an omnidirectional camera.” [0024], “he processor 202 may execute an algorithm stored in the memory 214 for eliminating effects of environmental conditions on images captured by the camera.”).
13. Regarding Claim 11, Wang discloses The image processing system according to claim 10,
However, Wang does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to correct the received image by using sensor information of an environment sensor in the correction processing.
Malkes teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to correct the received image by using sensor information of an environment sensor in the correction processing ([0007], [0015], “A camera captures a reference image during a first environmental condition. Environmental information from sensors or a network source identifies a second environmental condition, during which the camera captures an environment-affected image. An environmental effect affecting the environment-affected image is identified based on a difference between the reference image and the environment-affected image” [0052], “At step 610, an action may be initiated to deter or mitigate effect of the environmental conditions on the images captured by the omnidirectional camera”).
It would have been obvious to a person ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the known technique of performing correction processing on the received image using environment sensor data as taught by Malkes into the first image processing stage as taught in Wang, because both references are directed to improving the quality and reliability of images in distributed processing systems. Doing so would yield predictable benefits: normalizing images before transmission ensures that the subsequent (second server) processing is more accurate and consistent.
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.
14. Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Malkes as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent 9172871, Zhao et al. (hereinafter Zhao).
15. Regarding Claim 4, Wang in view of Malkes discloses The image processing apparatus according to claim 2,
However, Wang in view of Malkes does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to correct the received image in correspondence with a transmission source of the image in the correction processing.
Further Zhao teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to correct the received image in correspondence with a transmission source of the image in the correction processing (abstract, “acquiring information of independent images that are captured by each camera and have no overlap area or have an overlap area smaller than a threshold; acquiring, according to information of each independent image, an image correction parameter that corresponds to each camera”).
It would have been obvious to a person ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to combining Wang’s distributed image processing architecture, the sensor-based image correction as taught in Malkes, and the camera-specific correction techniques of Zhao would normalize differences between cameras in a multi-camera system, ensuring that the images sent on the second server are consistent and comparable. This would in turn enhance performance of the second-stage and third-stage processing described in Wang.
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.
16. Claim(s) 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 10,769,913 Wang et al. (hereinafter Wang) in view of U.S. Patent Application 2023/0060383, MA et al. (hereinafter MA).
17. Regarding Claim 5, Wang discloses The image processing apparatus according to claim 1,
Wang teaches in Col. 6 lines 24-25 “A fixed position camera 12 may be set in a fixed position, such as mounted to the eaves of a building”
However, Wang does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to receive an image acquired from a mobile body by using a camera mounted on the mobile body.
Further MA teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to receive an image acquired from a mobile body by using a camera mounted on the mobile body ([0043], “The autonomous driving system 100 may include sensor drivers and a world engine 102 that is configured to capture and process sensor data relating to an environment in which the autonomous vehicle travels”).
It would have been obvious to a person ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Wang’s distributed image processing architecture to use vehicle mounted cameras as the transmission source as taught in MA yields a system in which Wang’s hierarchical architecture receives images from vehicle cameras, achieving real-time analysis for mobile platforms, and reduce on-board compute load and leverage powerful cloud servers.
18. Regarding Claim 6, Wang in view of MA discloses The image processing apparatus according to claim 5,
MA discloses wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to perform the processing the first image processing by using vehicle information of a mobile body that is a transmission source of the received image ([0043], “The autonomous driving system 100 may include sensor drivers and a world engine 102 that is configured to capture and process sensor data relating to an environment in which the autonomous vehicle travels”).
It would have been obvious to a person ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Wang’s distributed image processing architecture to use vehicle mounted cameras as the transmission source as taught in MA yields a system in which Wang’s hierarchical architecture receives images from vehicle cameras, achieving real-time analysis for mobile platforms, and reduce on-board compute load and leverage powerful cloud servers.
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.
19. Claim(s) 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 10,769,913 Wang et al. (hereinafter Wang) in view of U.S. Patent 9172871, Zhao et al. (hereinafter Zhao).
20. Regarding Claim 12, Wang discloses The image processing system according to claim 10,
However, Wang does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to correct the received image in correspondence with a transmission source of the image in the correction processing.
Zhao teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to correct the received image in correspondence with a transmission source of the image in the correction processing (abstract, “acquiring information of independent images that are captured by each camera and have no overlap area or have an overlap area smaller than a threshold; acquiring, according to information of each independent image, an image correction parameter that corresponds to each camera”).
It would have been obvious to a person ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to combining Wang’s distributed image processing architecture with the camera-specific correction techniques of Zhao would normalize differences between cameras in a multi-camera system, ensuring that the images sent on the second server are consistent and comparable. This would in turn enhance performance of the second-stage and third-stage processing described in Wang.
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.
21. Claim(s) 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 10,769,913 Wang et al. (hereinafter Wang) in view of U.S. Patent Application 2022/0232461, Chaysinh et al. (hereinafter Chaysinh).
22. Regarding Claim 13, Wang discloses The image processing system according to claim 9,
However, Wang does not explicitly disclose wherein the first server is a multi-access/mobile edge computing (MEC) server.
Chaysinh teaches wherein the first server is a multi-access/mobile edge computing (MEC) server (claim 1, “multi-access edge computing (MEC) clusters”).
It would have been obvious to a person ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to implement Wang’s “first server”: as a multi-access edge computing (MEC) server as described in Chaysinh would yield predictable, well-understood advantages: lower latency, reduced backhaul bandwidth, and real-time responsiveness. Hence improvements sought in video surveillance and vehicular applications.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMER KHALID whose telephone number is (571)270-5997. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 9am-7pm.
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, John Miller can be reached at (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 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.
/OMER KHALID/Examiner, Art Unit 2422
/JOHN W MILLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2422