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, 4, 9 – 11, 14, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tatsuro (Japanese Patent Application Publication JP 2006-185127) in view of Shrestha et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2020/0202184), hereinafter referred as Shrestha.
Regarding claim 11, Tatsuro discloses an apparatus comprising:
an image sensor (page 2 bottom 2 paras., surveillance/monitoring camera); and
a processor (page 13, para. 2, processor) executing a program to:
detect a person based on image data from the image sensor (page 6);
determine that the person is within a first area (page 6);
in response to determining that the person is within the first area, adjust a level of monitoring (page 6 para. 5, determine an intruder is between the preset lines 1 and 2, selects/adjusts the security level as "level 1");
determine that the person is within a second area (page 6 para. 6 – 7, determine an intruder is between the preset lines 2 - 3 and/or 3 - 4);
in response to determining that the person is within the second area, execute a deterrence action (page 6 para. 6 – 7, output of a warning message).
However, Tatsuro fails to explicitly disclose the apparatus wherein the processor executing a machine-learning model, wherein the machine-learning model is trained by applying the machine-learning model on historical data.
However, in a similar field of endeavor Shrestha discloses security and surveillance system ([0003 – 0004], Fig. 1A). In addition, Shrestha discloses the system wherein the processor executing a machine-learning model ([0020 – 0021, 0029 – 0040]), wherein the machine-learning model is trained by applying the machine-learning model on historical data ([0067 – 0069]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the invention of Tatsuro, and the processor executing a machine-learning model, wherein the machine-learning model is trained by applying the machine-learning model on historical data. The motivation for doing this is that the detection and determination can be more accurate and powerful as Tatsuro disclosed ([0003 – 0004]).
Regarding claim 14 (depends on claim 11), Tatsuro discloses the apparatus wherein detecting the person includes determining a location of the person using multiple sensors (page 6 para. 6 – 7, determine an intruder is between the preset lines 2 - 3 and/or 3 – 4; page 10, para. 3: talked about position acquired by the distance sensor).
Regarding claim 19 (depends on claim 11), Tatsuro discloses the apparatus wherein executing the deterrence action includes emitting one or more audiovisual signals (page 10, output voice and turns on light).
Regarding claim 20 (depends on claim 11), Tatsuro discloses the apparatus wherein executing the deterrence action includes generating, by the processor executing the machine-learning model, one or more audiovisual signals (page 10, generate voice data and turns on light based on security level).
Regarding claims 1, 4, 9 and 10, they are corresponding to claims 11, 14, 19 and 20, respectively, thus, they are interpreted and rejected for the same reason set forth for claims 11, 14, 19 and 20.
Claim(s) 2, 7 – 8, 12, 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tatsuro in view of Shrestha, and in further view of van Hoof et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2018/0349708), hereinafter referred as van Hoof.
Regarding claim 12 (depends on claim 11), Tatsuro fails to explicitly disclose the apparatus wherein the first area and the second area are defined based on user input.
However, in a similar field of endeavor van Hoof discloses security and surveillance system (abstract). In addition, van Hoof discloses wherein the first area and the second area are defined based on user input ([0194]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the invention of Tatsuro, and wherein the first area and the second area are defined based on user input. The motivation for doing this is that user have the control to define the area so that the application of Tatsuro can be more flexible.
Regarding claim 17 (depends on claim 11), Tatsuro fails to explicitly disclose the apparatus wherein detecting the person includes determining one or more characteristics or actions of the person.
However, in a similar field of endeavor van Hoof discloses security and surveillance system (abstract). In addition, van Hoof discloses wherein detecting the person includes determining one or more characteristics or actions of the person ([0088]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the invention of Tatsuro, and detecting the person includes determining one or more characteristics or actions of the person. The motivation for doing this is that more aspects for monitoring and controlling can be specified so that the application of Tatsuro can be extended.
Regarding claim 18 (depends on claim 17), Tatsuro discloses the apparatus wherein the deterrence action is based on the one or more characteristics or actions of the person (page 6 para. 6 – 7, output of a warning message based on person enters level 2 or level 3 zone).
Regarding claims 2, 7 and 8, they are corresponding to claims 12, 17 and 18, respectively, thus, they are interpreted and rejected for the same reason set forth for claims 12, 17 and 18.
Claim(s) 3 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tatsuro in view of Shrestha, in further view of van Hoof and Salgar (US Patent Application Publication 2019/0197254).
Regarding claim 13 (depends on claim 12), Tatsuro in view of Shrestha and in further view of van Hoof fails to explicitly disclose the apparatus wherein the machine-learning model provides the first area and the second area for approval by a user.
However, in a similar field of endeavor Salgar discloses surveillance system (abstract). In addition, Salgar discloses wherein the machine-learning model provides the first area and the second area for approval by a use ([0014]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the invention of Tatsuro, and the machine-learning model provides the first area and the second area for approval by a use. The motivation for doing this is that mistake can be prevented.
Regarding claim 3, it is corresponding to claim 3, thus, it is interpreted and rejected for the same reason set forth for claim 3.
Claim(s) 5 – 6, 15, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tatsuro in view of Shrestha, in further view of van Hoof and Taguchi (US Patent Application Publication 2022/0223028).
Regarding claim 15 (depends on claim 11), Tatsuro fails to explicitly disclose the apparatus, further comprising identifying the person.
However, in a similar field of endeavor Taguchi discloses security and surveillance system (abstract). In addition, Taguchi discloses the system further comprising identifying the person ([0120]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the invention of Tatsuro, and identifying the person. The motivation for doing this is that the action can be performed accordingly so that the application of Tatsuro can be extended.
Regarding claim 16 (depends on claim 15), Taguchi discloses the apparatus wherein the person is identified in response to increasing the level of monitoring ([0120], in response a user 29 moves to the warning area 24 with the RFID tag 18 identify the person with the RFID tag).
Regarding claims 5 – 6, they are corresponding to claims 15 – 16, respectively, thus, they are interpreted and rejected for the same reason set forth for claims 15 – 16.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QIAN YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7239. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8am-6pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Bee can be reached on 571-270-5183. 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/QIAN YANG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2677
Prosecution Insights