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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: input unit configured to in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belsarkar et al. (US 2013/0021433, hereinafter Belsarkar).
Re claim 1, Belsarkar discloses, a pan-tilt-zoom (PTZ) camera operating system comprising: a volatile memory (64) configured to store a hemispherical fisheye image generated using individual images within a motion range captured by a PTZ camera (fig 11 1106, pars [0055], [0059], [0070], [0079]); a processor configured to execute a surveillance area setting user interface (UI) for setting a surveillance area using the hemispherical fisheye image stored in the volatile memory (fig 11 1108, pars [0066]-[0068]); a display unit configured to output a surveillance area setting UI executed by the processor to a screen (par [0069], figs 6-10); a user input unit configured to receive input of a user operation for setting the surveillance area (pars [0072]-[0075]); a communication unit (66) configured to communicate with the PTZ camera (fig 4), wherein the surveillance area setting UI outputs the hemispherical fisheye image stored in the nonvolatile memory to the screen, and sets, as the surveillance area, an area selected through the user operation from the hemispherical fisheye image output to the screen (fig 11 1108, pars [0072]-[0075] and [0082], figs 6-10). Belsarkar fails to explicitly disclose nonvolatile memory.
Official Notice is taken to note that utilizing nonvolatile memory is notoriously well known and used in the related art.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine nonvolatile memory with the system of Belsarkar in order to produce a more stable system capable of retaining information regardless of power supply limitations.
Re claim 2, Belsarkar discloses the limitations of claim 1 including wherein the surveillance area setting UI sets the surveillance area using a grid setting method of [utilizing] grids for selection of the surveillance area (figs 6 and 7) through a user operation on the hemispherical fisheye image and setting, as the surveillance area, a fisheye image area including the grids on the hemispherical fisheye image (1108, par [0082], see also par [0076], mapping of coordinates indicates the use of “grids”). Belsarkar fails to explicitly disclose overlaying grids.
Official Notice is taken to note that utilizing overlaid grids is notoriously well known and used in the related art.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine overlaid grids with the system of Belsarkar in order to allow a user to more accurately select a region of interest.
Re claim 3, Belsarkar discloses the limitations of claim 1 including wherein the surveillance area setting UI sets the surveillance area using a polygon setting method of overlaying a polygon for selection of the surveillance area through a user operation on the hemispherical fisheye image and setting, as the surveillance area, a fisheye image area in the polygon selected by moving vertices of the polygon (figs 6 and 7, 1108, par [0082], see also par [0076]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Re claim 4, Belsarkar fails to explicitly disclose, “a coordinate mapping processor configured to generate a PTZ camera driving table by mapping fisheye image coordinates included in the surveillance area set by the surveillance area setting UI to PTZ camera driving coordinates; and a camera driving table storage controller configured to perform a control operation to store the PTZ camera driving table generated by the coordinate mapping processor in the nonvolatile memory” in combination with all limitations of claims 4 and 1.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOEL W FOSSELMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3728. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 - 5:00 M-F.
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, Twyler Haskins can be reached at (571)272-7406. 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.
/JOEL W FOSSELMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2639