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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 – 4 and 7 - 12 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, and 7 - 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao et al. (US 2019/0179216) (hereinafter Cao), as cited by applicant in view Stevenson et al. (US 2005/0036036) (hereinafter Stevenson), as cited by applicant in view of Kagei (US 2013/0222651) (hereinafter Kagei).
Regarding claims 1, 11, and 12, Cao teaches a control apparatus for controlling an image capturing unit capable of changing an imaging direction, a control method for the control apparatus that controls an image capturing unit, and a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program that, when executed by a computer, causes the computer to perform the control method for the control apparatus that controls an image capturing unit capable of changing an imaging direction, wherein the control apparatus, and the control method comprising:
One or more memories storing computer instructions and one or more processors executing the computer instructions to (e.g. par. 155: describing that the system includes a program stored on memory, the program causing a computing device to execute instructions):
change the imaging direction of the image capturing unit (e.g. Figs. 1 and 4, and pars. 19 – 24 and 41 - 49: depicting and describing a gimble, the gimble configured to change an imaging direction of a camera, wherein the gimbal is the equivalent of the driving unit [see, e.g. pars. 3 – 4 and 23: describing that the gimbal controls movement of the camera, the movement including a rotation angle, wherein a rotation angle is the equivalent of a pan/tilt of the camera); and
process a video obtained by the image capturing unit and output the processed video (e.g. pars. 79 – 89: describing that the system processes images captured by the camera to determine an angle of view of the camera,
wherein a driving speed in changing the imaging direction is changed based on the processed video (e.g. Figs. 1 and 4, and pars. 19 – 24 and 41 – 49: depicting and describing that the system changes a rotation speed/acceleration of the gimbal based on the detected angle of view, wherein the angle of view is the equivalent of the aspect ratio of the video [see, e.g. pars. 79 – 80: describing that the angle of view is determined by an X-direction of view, a Y-direction of view and a resolution of the captured image, the resolution corresponding to an aspect ratio of the captured image]).
Cao does not explicitly teach:
wherein the video processing unit is further configured to output the video,
wherein the processed video is a crop video obtained by cropping the video, the driving speed changed at least based on an aspect ratio of the processed video.
Stevenson, however, teaches a control apparatus:
wherein the video processing unit is further configured to output the video (e.g. Fig. 1, element 24, and par. 63: depicting and describing that the system displays images captured by the camera, wherein displaying images captured by the camera is the equivalent of outputting the video).
Kagei, however, teaches a control apparatus:
wherein the processed video is a crop video obtained by cropping the video, the driving speed changed at least based on an aspect ratio of the processed video (e.g. pars. 7 – 8: describing that the system processes video by changing an imaging angle, the system further changing the rotation speed of the camera based on the new imaging angle, wherein the imaging angle is the equivalent of the aspect ratio and wherein changing the image angle reasonably suggests cropping the video [see, e.g. par. 23: describing that the system changes an imaging angle from an original width and length to a new width and length that is smaller than the original width and length, wherein changing the width and length of an original image to a smaller length and width is the equivalent of cropping the image]).
It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Cao by adding the teachings of Stevenson in order for the video processing unit to be further configured to output the video, and by adding the teachings of Kagei in order for the processed video is a crop video obtained by cropping the video, the driving speed to be changed at least based on an aspect ratio of the processed video. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because the modification improves camera control systems by calculating a most appropriate pan and/or tilt speed based on the camera zoom setting (Stevenson, e.g. par. 14: describing a desire to improve camera control systems by determining the most appropriate pan and/or tilt speed based on the camera zoom setting), and because the modification reduces a feeling of strangeness caused by movement of a subject during an operation (Kagei, e.g. par. 18: describing a desire to reduce a feeling of strangeness caused by movement of a subject in an image during an operation of the camera).
Turning to claim 2, Cao, Stevenson, and Kagei teach all of the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Cao further teaches:
wherein a driving acceleration in changing the imaging direction is changed a least based on an aspect ratio of the processed video (e.g. Fig. 4, element S1032, and pars. 65 – 70: depicting and describing that the system adjusts an acceleration of the gimbal according to an angle of view, wherein the angle of view is the equivalent of the aspect ratio of the video [see, e.g. pars. 79 – 80: describing that the angle of view is determined by an X-direction of view, a Y-direction of view and a resolution of the captured image, the resolution corresponding to an aspect ratio of the captured image], wherein the aspect ratio of the captured image is the equivalent of the aspect ratio of the processed video [see discussion above]).
Regarding claim 4, Cao, Stevenson, and Kagei teach all of the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Cao further teaches:
wherein the one or more processors further execute the computer instructions to: change the imaging direction of the image capturing device to a pan direction, and change the imaging direction of the image capturing device to a tilt direction, a driving speed in the pan direction is changed at least based on the aspect ratio of the processed video, and a driving speed in the tilt direction is changed at least based on the aspect ratio of the processed video (e.g. pars. 22 – 23: describing that the gimbal adjusts a rotation and angle of the photographing device, the system adjusting a rotation speed of the camera and a rotation angle of the camera based on the angle of view of the captured images, wherein the angle of view is the equivalent of the aspect ratio of the image [see, e.g. pars. 79 – 80: describing that the angle of view is determined by an X-direction of view, a Y-direction of view and a resolution of the captured image, the resolution corresponding to an aspect ratio of the captured image], and wherein it is known to those of ordinary skill in the art that in order for the gimbal to adjust a rotation and an angle of the photographing device, the gimbal must necessarily control a pan direction of the photographing device and a tilt direction of the photographing device [see, e.g. Xie et al. (WO 2024/051330) (hereinafter Xie), e.g. pg. 4, lines 29 – 32: describing that a gimble controls and adjust the pan and tilt of a camera], wherein the aspect ratio of the video is the equivalent of the aspect ratio of the processed video [see discussion above]).
Turning to claim 7, Cao, Stevenson, and Kagei teach all of the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Cao does not explicitly teach:
the one or more processors further execute the computer instructions to receive, from a user terminal that remotely controls the control apparatus, a first control command to for changing the imaging direction and a second control command for cropping the video, wherein the imaging direction is based on the first control command, and an aspect ratio of the crop video is calculated, based on crop information included in the second control command, and the crop video is generated based on the crop information.
Stevenson, however, teaches a control apparatus:
the one or more processors further execute the computer instructions to receive, from a user terminal that remotely controls the control apparatus, a first control command to for changing the imaging direction and a second control command for cropping the video, wherein the imaging direction is based on the first control command, and an aspect ratio of the crop video is calculated, based on crop information included in the second control command, and the crop video is generated based on the crop information (e.g. Figs. 3a and 3b, and pars. 27, 31, and 69 – 70: depicting and describing that the system receives information from a user on an area in a captured video images to be cropped, the camera controlled to zoom in on the identified area such that the output image is centered on the selected area and contains only the selected area, the system further controlling the speed of panning, tilting and zooming the camera based on the calculated aspect ratio of the cropped image to be displayed [see, e.g. pars. 27 and 31: describing that the system adjusts the speed of panning and tilting the camera based on a zoom setting of the camera, a zoom setting of the camera determined based on a calculated size of an image to be displayed, wherein a calculated size of an image reasonably suggests an aspect ratio of an image to be displayed]).
It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Cao by adding the teachings of Stevenson in order to receive, from a user terminal that remotely controls the control apparatus, a first control command for changing the imaging direction and a second control for cropping the video, wherein the imaging direction is changed based on the first control command, an aspect ratio of the crop video is calculated based on crop information included in the second control command and the crop is generated video based on the crop information. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because the modification improves camera control systems by calculating a most appropriate pan and/or tilt speed based on the camera zoom setting (Stevenson, e.g. par. 14: describing a desire to improve camera control systems by determining the most appropriate pan and/or tilt speed based on the camera zoom setting).
Regarding claim 8, Cao, Stevenson, and Kagei teach all of the limitations of claims 1 and 7, as discussed above. Cao does not explicitly teach:
wherein a framed video is generated by overlaying a crop frame on the video based on the crop information, and the framed video is transmitted to the user terminal.
Stevenson, however, teaches a control apparatus:
wherein a framed video is generated by overlaying a crop frame on the video based on the crop information, and the framed video is transmitted to the user terminal (e.g. Figs. 3a and 3b, and pars. 69 – 70: depicting and describing that the system overlays a frame [depicted as a rectangular area 30 in Fig. 3a] on an image captured by the camera, the frame surrounding an area selected by the user terminal to be cropped from the captured image, the frame overlaying the captured image displayed to the user).
It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Cao by adding the teachings of Stevenson in order for a framed video to be generated by overlaying a crop frame on the video based on the crop information, and for the framed video to be transmitted to the user terminal. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because the modification improves camera control systems by calculating a most appropriate pan and/or tilt speed based on the camera zoom setting (Stevenson, e.g. par. 14: describing a desire to improve camera control systems by determining the most appropriate pan and/or tilt speed based on the camera zoom setting).
Turning to claim 9, Cao, Stevenson, and Kagei teach all of the limitations of claims 1, 7, and 8, as discussed above. Cao does not explicitly teach:
wherein the crop information includes information concerning a plurality of crop frames, and information concerning one selected crop frame selected from the plurality of crop frames, and the framed video is generated by overlaying the plurality of crop frames, and the selected crop frame is distinguishably displayed in the framed video.
Stevenson, however, teaches a control apparatus:
wherein the crop information includes information concerning a plurality of crop frames, and information concerning one selected crop frame selected from the plurality of crop frames, and the framed video is generated by overlaying the plurality of crop frames, and the selected crop frame is distinguishably displayed in the framed video (e.g. Figs. 3a and 3b, and pars. 69 – 70: depicting and describing that the system overlays a frame [depicted as a rectangular area 30 in Fig. 3a] on video captured by the camera [see, e.g. par. 16: describing that the images viewed by a user are video images, wherein video images are the equivalent of a plurality of images], the frame surrounding an area selected by the user terminal to be cropped from the captured video, the frame overlaying the captured video displayed to the user).
It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Cao by adding the teachings of Stevenson in order for the crop information to include information concerning a plurality of crop frames, and information concerning one selected crop frame selected from the plurality of crop frames, and for the framed video to be generated by overlaying the plurality of crop frames, and the selected crop frame is distinguishably displayed in the framed video. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because the modification improves camera control systems by calculating a most appropriate pan and/or tilt speed based on the camera zoom setting (Stevenson, e.g. par. 14: describing a desire to improve camera control systems by determining the most appropriate pan and/or tilt speed based on the camera zoom setting).
Regarding claim 10, Cao, Stevenson, and Kagei teach all of the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Cao does not explicitly teach:
wherein the one or more processors further execute the computer instructions to receive, from a user terminal that remotely controls the control apparatus, a first control command for changing the imaging direction and a second control command for cropping the video, the first control command includes speed instruction information based on an aspect ratio of the crop video, which is calculated based on crop information included in the second control command, the imaging direction is changed based on the first control command, and the crop video is generated based on the crop information.
Stevenson, however, teaches a control apparatus:
wherein the one or more processors further execute the computer instructions to receive, from a user terminal that remotely controls the control apparatus, a first control command for changing the imaging direction and a second control command for cropping the video, the first control command includes speed instruction information based on an aspect ratio of the crop video, which is calculated based on crop information included in the second control command, the imaging direction is changed based on the first control command, and the crop video is generated based on the crop information (e.g. Figs. 3a and 3b, and pars. 27, 31, and 69 – 70: depicting and describing that the system receives information from a user on an area in a captured video images to be cropped, the camera controlled to change a displayed image such that the output image is centered on the selected area and contains only the selected area, the system further controlling the speed of panning, tilting and zooming the camera based on the aspect ratio of the cropped image to be displayed [see, e.g. pars. 27 and 31: describing that the system adjusts the speed of panning and tilting the camera based on a zoom setting of the camera, a zoom setting of the camera determined based on a calculated size of an image to be displayed, wherein a calculated size of an image reasonably suggests an aspect ratio of an image to be displayed]).
It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Cao by adding the teachings of Stevenson in order to receive, from a user terminal that remotely controls the control apparatus, a first control command for changing the imaging direction and a second control command for cropping the video, the first control command including speed instruction information based on an aspect ratio of the crop video, which is calculated based on crop information included in the second control command, the imaging direction changed based on the first control command, and the crop video generated based on the crop information. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because the modification improves camera control systems by calculating a most appropriate pan and/or tilt speed based on the camera zoom setting (Stevenson, e.g. par. 14: describing a desire to improve camera control systems by determining the most appropriate pan and/or tilt speed based on the camera zoom setting).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao et al. (US 2019/0179216) (hereinafter Cao), as cited by applicant in view Stevenson et al. (US 2005/0036036) (hereinafter Stevenson), as cited by applicant in view of Kagei (US 2013/0222651) (hereinafter Kagei) as applied to claims 1 and 4, respectively, above, and further in view of Xie et al. (WO 2024/051330) (hereinafter Xie).
Regarding claim 3, Cao, Stevenson, and Kagei teach all of the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Cao does not explicitly teach:
wherein a driving acceleration in changing the imaging direction of the image capturing unit is further based on a magnification ratio of an object in the video.
Xie, however, teaches a control apparatus:
wherein a driving acceleration in changing the imaging direction of the image capturing unit is further based on a magnification ratio of an object in the video (e.g. pg. 1, lines 24 – 29: describing that the system adjust gimbal speed using optical magnification of the camera, wherein optical magnification reasonably suggests a magnification ratio).
It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Cao by adding the teachings of Xie in order for a driving acceleration in changing the imaging direction of the image capturing unit to be further based on a magnification ratio of an object in the video. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because the modification improves performance of PTZ cameras (Xie, e.g. pg. 1, lines 18 – 19: describing a desire to improve poor performance of PTZ cameras in capturing target objects).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is 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.
Conclusion
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 SHANIKA M BRUMFIELD whose telephone number is (571)270-3700. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 - 5 PM AWS.
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, David Czekaj can be reached at 571-272-7327. 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.
SHANIKA M. BRUMFIELD
Examiner
Art Unit 2487
/SHANIKA M BRUMFIELD/Examiner, Art Unit 2487
/Dave Czekaj/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights