DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Th limitations of “image sensor and is configured to update the wide-area image at a first update rate”, “update at least a portion of the wide-area image at a second update rate that is lower than the first update rate” in the claim, as essential components in the invention either have no adequate support or description in the disclosure including specification and drawings, and enablement for the claimed subject matters, or after applying the broadest reasonable interpretation to the claim, the metes and bounds of the claimed invention still is clear and not indefinite.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claims 1, 2, 7, 8 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US 6546115 B1 Ito; Wataru et al. (hereafter Ito), and further in view of US 20070038088 A1 Rich; Collin A. et al. (hereafter Rich).
Regarding claim 1, Ito discloses A wide area imaging system for performing surveillance of an area (Fig.6), the system comprising: an image sensor that captures images of the area under surveillance (col.1 lines 15-24), the image sensor providing image capture of a predetermined image field (col.7 lines 52-55), the captured images being used to produce a wide-area image (col.1 lines 26-27, col.1 lines 42-54, reference background image is a wide area image); and a processor that controls the image capture by the image sensor (Fig.6) and is configured to update the wide-area image at a first update rate (col.5 lines 34-41, initially update rate is set 1/64), the processor being in communication with one or more sensors within or adjacent to the area under surveillance (Abstract, col.3 lines 30-34), the processor further being configured to, in response to data from the one or more sensors, update at least a portion of the wide-area image at a second update rate that is lower than the first update rate (col.2 lines 39-41, col.3 lines 30-34).
Ito fails to disclose the one or more sensors being at least one of a motion detector, a seismic sensor, or an acoustic sensor.
However, Rich teaches the one or more sensors being at least one of a motion detector, a seismic sensor, or an acoustic sensor ([23]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made to modify the wide area imaging system for performing surveillance of an area disclosed by Ito to include the teaching in the same field of endeavor of Rich, in order to improve user interface and control scheme in medical imaging, as identified by Rich.
Regarding claims 2, 8, Rich teaches The wide area imaging system of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to increase a resolution of the at least a portion of the wide-area image that is updated at the second update rate ([18]).
Regarding claim 7, see the rejection for claim 1.
Claims 3, 9 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ito, in view of Rich and further in view of US 5119409 A Nields; Morgan W. et al. (hereafter Nields).
Regarding claims 3, 9, Nields The wide area imaging system of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to perform successive hypothesis testing within the at least a portion of the wide-area image that is updated at the second update rate in order to detect objects of interest (col.9, lines 49-53).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention having all the references Ito, Rich and Nields before him/her, to modify the wide area imaging system for performing surveillance of an area disclosed by Ito to include the teaching in the same field of endeavor of Rich and Nields, in order to improve user interface and control scheme in medical imaging field, as identified by Rich, and provide method and apparatus for dynamically controlling the generation of x-ray pulses during fluoroscopic imaging, as identified by Nields.
Claims 4-6, 10-12 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ito, in view of Rich, and further in view of US 20130188010 A1 Dortch; Michael D. et al. (hereafter Dortch).
Regarding claims 4, 10, Dortch teaches The wide area imaging system of claim 1, wherein the image sensor uses a rotational step/dwell/image capture sequence to capture the images of the area under surveillance, wherein a step is rotational movement of the sensor, a dwell period occurs before or after a step, and image capture occurs only during dwell periods, and wherein the processor controls the step/dwell/image capture sequence to synchronize motion in a direction of rotation of the system with image capture, wherein the predetermined image field advances in the direction of rotation as the system rotates ([07]-[08], [52], [58]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention having all the references Ito, Rich and Dortch before him/her, to modify the wide area imaging system for performing surveillance of an area disclosed by Ito to include the teaching in the same field of endeavor of Rich and Dortch, in order to improve user interface and control scheme in medical imaging field, as identified by Rich, and accommodate the requirements of different cameras, sensors and lenses, as identified by Dortch.
Regarding claims 5, 11, Dortch taches The wide area imaging system of claim 1, wherein the image sensor is located on a moveable platform ([58]), and Rich teaches one or more inertial devices measure movements of the platform that affect the wide-area image produced from the captured images and produce output that can be used to provide image compensation that is related to such movements of the platform ([23]).
Claims 6, 12 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ito, in view of Rich, and further in view of US 20110227748 A1 SCHAIBLE; Uwe D. et al. (hereafter SCHAIBLE).
Regarding claims 6, 12, SCHAIBLE teaches The wide area imaging system of claim 1, further comprising a laser configured to hail or notify a subject identified in the wide area image of the area under surveillance that the subject's presence has been detected ([04]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention having all the references Ito, Rich and SCHAIBLE before him/her, to modify the wide area imaging system for performing surveillance of an area disclosed by Ito to include the teaching in the same field of endeavor of Rich and SCHAIBLE, in order to improve user interface and control scheme in medical imaging field, as identified by Rich, and provide a radio-frequency identification (RFID) safety system, as identified by SCHAIBLE.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 20100231800 A1, US 20100168763 A1, US 20080278445 A1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRACY Y. LI whose telephone number is (571)270-3671. The examiner can normally be reached Monday Friday (8:30 AM- 4:30 PM) EST.
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.
/TRACY Y. LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487