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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21, 29, and 34 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,243,304. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as will be shown below:
19/024825
12,243,304
21. A method comprising:
detecting, using a baseline background image of a scene that is used to detect changes to the scene, a region of localized change in a current background image with respect to the baseline background image;
Examiner’s Note:
Even though the wording is not identical, both of these limitations are using a background image of a region to detect changes in the scenery
1. A computer-implemented method comprising:
maintaining, in computer memory, a background image that depicts a scene of a region, was captured by a camera at a first time, and is used to determine an action to perform given a determined change in the scene of the region;
in response to detecting the region of localized change in the background image, determining whether the region of localized change is attributable to a known object type;
obtaining an image depicting the region and captured by the camera at a second time that is different from the first time;
determining that the image depicts a change in the scene of the region from the background image, wherein determining that the image depicts the change comprises comparing the image to the background image;
in response to determining that the region of localized change is not attributable to a known object type, determining whether gradients of pixel values in the region of localized change satisfy one or more frequency criteria that indicate whether a change in the region is likely typical; and
determining, based on determining that the image depicts the change in the region, whether the change depicted in the image is of a known object type;
in response to determining that the gradients of pixel values in the region of localized change satisfy the one or more frequency criteria indicating that the change is likely typical, updating the baseline background image for the scene.
determining, based on the determination that the change depicted in the image is of a known object type, whether the change does not correspond to a previously detected event; and in response to determining that the change does correspond to a previously detected event, generating an updated background image for the region.
Examiner’s Note:
Even though “gradients of pixel” does not appear in the claim, the change depicted in the image is performing the same functionality of determining that the event is a typical (previously detected) event
Claims 29 and 34 of the current application align with claim 1 of US 12, 243,304 similar to the way presented above, therefore similar rationality applies.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22-28, 30-33, and 35-40 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LENNIN R RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1678. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9:00am-7:00pm.
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, Abderrahim Merouan can be reached at 571-270-5254. 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.
/LENNIN R RODRIGUEZGONZALEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2683
Prosecution Insights