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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/02/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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, 5, 6, 10, 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moroda (US 2022/0094595) in view of Velipasalar et al. (US 2009/0002492; hereinafter Velipasalar), and further in view of Mourkogiannis et al. (US 2021/0304506; hereinafter Mourkogiannis).
Regarding claim 1:
Moroda discloses an imaging apparatus (see Figs. 1 and 2) comprising:
one or more processors (see Fig. 2; control unit 11); and
one or more memories storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors (see Fig. 2, storage unit 12), cause the one or more processors to function as:
a detection unit configured to perform detection for detecting at least one of an object (see Fig. 2, image capturing unit 15 and paragraph [0042]);
a reception unit configured to receive, from an external device, a setting command regarding the detection (see Fig. 2; communication unit 14 and paragraph [0041] and [0068]; “The communication unit 14 also communicates with the client apparatus 3 through the network 6”); and
a setting unit configured to set, based on the setting command received by the reception unit, a parameter that is used when the detection unit performs the detection (see Fig. 2, setting control unit 13 and paragraph [0041]-[0041).
Moroda does not expressly disclose perform detection for detection at least of an object which is carried away and an object which is left behind.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Velipasalar discloses an image apparatus, wherein a detection unit configured to perform detection for detecting at least one of an object which is carried away and an object which is left behind (see paragraphs [0055]-[0056]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Moroda and Velipasalar such that the detection unit is configured to perform detection for detecting at least one of an object which is carried away and an object which is left behind. The combination would have yielded a predictable result of accurately detecting the status of the objects within the view of the imaging apparatus.
Moroda and Velipasalar do not disclose wherein the setting unit is configured to use a value of a first parameter included in the setting command to set a second parameter that is used when the detection unit performs the detection and that is different from the first parameter.
However, Mourkogiannis discloses an imaging apparatus, wherein the setting unit is configured to use a value of a first parameter included in the setting command to set a second parameter that is used when the detection unit performs the detection and that is different from the first parameter (see paragraphs [0095] and [0109]; Mourkogiannis discloses using default parameter value(s) when a respective parameter value and/or binary asset is not provided).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Moroda and Mourkogiannis such that the setting unit is configured to use a value of a first parameter included in the setting command to set a second parameter that is used when the detection unit performs the detection and that is different from the first parameter. The combination would have yielded a predictable result of achieving customization of the settings even when one or more parameter is not provided in the setting command.
Regarding claim 5:
Moroda, Velipasalar, and Mourkogiannis disclose all the features in claim 1. Velipasalar further discloses the imaging apparatus, wherein the first parameter is a detection sensitivity to the object, and the second parameter is a size of the object to be detected (see Figs.4-5 and paragraphs [0055-[0056]).
Regarding claim 6:
Moroda, Velipasalar, and Mourkogiannis disclose all the features in claim 1. Velipasalar further discloses the imaging apparatus, wherein the second parameter is a minimum size of the object to be detected (see Fig. 4, minimum detected object size 226).
Regarding claim 10:
Moroda, Velipasalar, and Mourkogiannis disclose all the features in claim 1. Velipasalar further discloses the imaging apparatus, wherein the setting unit is configured to set a minimum size of the object to be detected by the detection unit in a range from a default value to a maximum value settable by the setting unit (see Fig. 4; Velipasalar is capable of setting the detected object size between 1 (default value) to 76800 (maximum value)).
Regarding claims 13 and 14:
Claims 13 and 14 each recites similar limitations as in claim 1. Hence, claims 13 and 14 are rejected under the same reasons as discussed above in claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4, 7-9, and 11-12 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.
In regards to claim 2, none of the reference of record alone or in combination discloses or suggests the imaging apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the setting unit is configured to: in a case where the setting command satisfies a predetermined condition, use the value of the first parameter included in the setting command to set the first parameter and the second parameter; and in a case where the setting command does not satisfy the predetermined condition, use a value of the second parameter included in the setting command to set the second parameter.
In regards to claim 3, none of the reference of record alone or in combination discloses or suggests the imaging apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the predetermined condition is that the setting command includes the first parameter and does not include the second parameter.
In regards to claim 4, none of the reference of record alone or in combination discloses or suggests the imaging apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the predetermined condition is that the setting command is a command of a predetermined control protocol.
In regards to claim 7, none of the reference of record alone or in combination discloses or suggests the imaging apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the setting unit is configured to set a smaller minimum size of the object to be detected by the detection unit as the detection sensitivity to the object included in the setting command increases.
In regards to claim 8, none of the reference of record alone or in combination discloses or suggests the imaging apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the setting unit is configured to: in a case where the detection sensitivity to the object included in the setting command is less than a threshold, set a smaller minimum size of the object to be detected by the detection unit as the detection sensitivity to the object included in the setting command increases; and in a case where the detection sensitivity to the object included in the setting command is the threshold or more, set the minimum size of the object to be detected by the detection unit at a predetermined value.
In regards to claim 9, none of the reference of record alone or in combination discloses or suggests the imaging apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the setting unit is configured to: in a case where the detection sensitivity to the object included in the setting command is a threshold or more, set smaller minimum size of the object to be detected by the detection unit as the detection sensitivity to the object included in the setting command increases; and in a case where the detection sensitivity to the object included in the setting command is less than the threshold, set the minimum size of the object to be detected by the detection unit at a predetermined value.
In regards to claim 11, none of the reference of record alone or in combination discloses or suggests the imaging apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the setting unit is configured to use the detection sensitivity to the object included in the setting command to set a minimum size of the object to be detected by the detection unit, and set a maximum size of the object to be detected by the detection unit at a maximum value settable by the setting unit.
In regards to claim 12, none of the reference of record alone or in combination discloses or suggests the imaging apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the setting unit is configured to designate the size of the object to be detected by the detection unit using an area ratio to an object detection region or an imaging region, or a width and a height in the object detection region or the imaging region.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Modestine et al. (US 10,482,737) discloses a parcel theft deterrence for A/V recording and communication device.
Miller et al. (US 8,593,517) discloses a method and apparatus for configurating a video surveillance source.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIXI CHOW SIMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-7571. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00am-3:00pm.
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, William Boddie can be reached at 517-272-0666. 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.
/LIXI C SIMPSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2625
Prosecution Insights