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 .
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.
Claims 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, 16, 18 and 20-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Funagi (United States Patent Application Publication 2020/0045242) in view of Kawabata et al. (United States Patent Application Publication 2021/0258466), hereinafter referenced as Kawabata, and further in view of Wakamatsu (United States Patent Application Publication 2021/0152731).
Regarding claim 1, Funagi discloses a control apparatus comprising: one or more memories storing instructions (paragraph 203 discloses a memory storing an operating program); and one or more processors executing the instructions (paragraph 203 discloses a processor executing the operating program) to: acquire a detection result of an object detected from images acquired by a plurality of respective imaging units (figure 7A exhibits step S702 in which a result of human detection is acquired as disclosed at paragraph 82) configured to move independently (figure 2 shows one of a plurality of cameras which can move independently of each other as disclosed at paragraphs 42-44); and in a case where the object is determined to be detected based on the detection result, control to display a first graphical user interface on a display unit (figure 7A exhibits step S703 in which the graphical user interface shown in figure 5A is shown as disclosed at paragraphs 83 and 84).
However, Funagi fails to disclose wherein the cameras move independently on the same circumference and the first graphical user interface being configured to change an imaging region of an imaging unit acquiring an image where the object is detected among the plurality of imaging units.
Funagi discloses a plurality of cameras which can be used to monitor and area and which can pan, tilt and zoom. Kawabata discloses a plurality of cameras which can pan, tilt and zoom and which move independently on the same circumference (figures 14A and 14B show a plurality of cameras which can move independently on the same circumference as disclosed at paragraph 93). Because both Funagi and Kawabata disclose a plurality of cameras which can be used to monitor an area, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the cameras which move independently on the same circumference as taught by Kawabata for the cameras disclosed by Funagi to achieve the predictable result of monitoring an area using a plurality of cameras.
Therefore the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Funagi in view of Kawabata fails to disclose wherein the user interface is configured to change an imaging region of an imaging unit acquiring an image where the object is detected among the plurality of imaging units.
Wakamatsu is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Wakamatsu teaches a camera system wherein the motivation of allowing a user to manually adjust the field of view of a camera to a desired size and position would have prompted a predictable variation of Funagi by applying Wakamatsu’s known principal of providing a user interface is configured to change an imaging region of an imaging unit acquiring an image where the object is detected among the plurality of imaging units (figure 5B exhibits a user interface with controls 1707 and 1708 for changing an imaging region of a camera as disclosed at paragraph 128).
In view of the motivations such as allowing a user to manually adjust the field of view of a camera to a desired size and position one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art system of Funagi.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2, Funagi in view of Kawabata and further in view of Wakamatsu disclose the control apparatus according to claim 1, in addition, Wakamatsu discloses wherein the one or more processors execute the instructions to issue an instruction to change the imaging region of the imaging unit acquiring the image where the object is detected, based on an operation on the first graphical user interface (paragraph 128 teaches that if the pan/tilt or zoom controls on the interface are used, then a corresponding instruction is sent to the camera currently under control).
Regarding claim 8, Funagi in view of Kawabata and further in view of Wakamatsu discloses the control apparatus according to claim 1, however, Funagi fails to disclose wherein the one or more processors execute the instructions to control display indicating positions of the plurality of imaging units on the circumference on the display unit.
Wakamatsu is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Wakamatsu teaches a camera system wherein the motivation of allowing a user to quickly change which camera is being controlled so a subject can be viewed and tracked from different angles would have prompted a predictable variation of Funagi by applying Wakamatsu’s known principal of controlling display indicating positions of the plurality of imaging units on the display unit (figure 5A shows a user interface 1701 showing the location of cameras). When applying this known technique to Funagi in view of Kawabata it is obvious that the display area 1701 would show positions of the plurality of imaging units on the circumference on the display unit.
In view of the motivations such as allowing a user to quickly change which camera is being controller so a subject can be viewed and tracked from different angles one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art system of Funagi.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 9, Funagi in view of Kawabata and further in view of Wakamatsu discloses the control apparatus according to claim 1, however, Funagi fails to disclose wherein the one or more processors execute the instructions to: control to display a second graphical user interface on the display unit, the second graphical user interface being configured to switch display; and control to display the first graphical user interface on the display unit based on an operation on the second graphical user interface.
Wakamatsu is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Wakamatsu teaches a camera system wherein the motivation of allowing a user to quickly change which camera is being controlled so a subject can be viewed and tracked from different angles would have prompted a predictable variation of Funagi by applying Wakamatsu’s known principal of controlling control to display a second graphical user interface on the display unit, the second graphical user interface being configured to switch display (figure 5A exhibits user interface area 1701 which allows a user to change which camera has a live view displayed in area 1702 as disclosed at paragraph 127); and control to display the first graphical user interface on the display unit based on an operation on the second graphical user interface (paragraph 128 teaches that upon touching button 1703 in figure 5A, the control interface shown in figure 5B is displayed).
In view of the motivations such as allowing a user to quickly change which camera is being controller so a subject can be viewed and tracked from different angles one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art system of Funagi.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 15, Funagi in view of Kawabata and further in view of Wakamatsu disclose the control apparatus according to claim 1, in addition, Wakamatsu discloses wherein information about the imaging region includes at least one of a pan angle, a tilt angle, a zoom magnification, and a rotation angle (figure 5B shows that pan, tilt and zoom amounts can be adjusted by the user).
Regarding claim 16, Funagi in view of Kawabata and further in view of Wakamatsu discloses the control apparatus according to claim 1, however, Funagi fails to disclose wherein the one or more processors execute the instructions to control to display a third graphical user interface on the display unit, the third graphical user interface being configured to change an imaging region of an imaging unit selected by a user's operation among the plurality of imaging units.
Wakamatsu is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Wakamatsu teaches a camera system wherein the motivation of allowing a user to quickly change which camera is being controller so a subject can be viewed and tracked from different angles would have prompted a predictable variation of Funagi by applying Wakamatsu’s known principal of displaying a user interface which allows a user to change an imaging region of a next user selected camera (figure 5B shows a user interface which appears when a user selects a camera to control as disclosed at paragraph 127 which teaches that when a user selects a camera in area 1701 then a user interface for controlling that camera is displayed).
In view of the motivations such as allowing a user to quickly change which camera is being controller so a subject can be viewed and tracked from different angles one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art system of Funagi.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 18, Funagi in view of Kawabata and further in view of Wakamatsu discloses the control apparatus according to claim 1, in addition, Wakamatsu teaches wherein the one or more processors execute the instructions to, in a case where movement of the imaging unit acquiring the image where the object is detected in a first direction on the circumference is restricted, control to display a fourth graphical user interface based on a user's operation or after a lapse of a predetermined time, the fourth graphical user interface being configured to change an imaging region of an imaging unit adjacent to the imaging unit acquiring the image where the object is detected in the first direction on the circumference (figure 5A exhibits user interface area 1701 which allows a user to change which camera has a live view displayed in area 1702 as disclosed at paragraph 127; paragraph 128 teaches that upon touching button 1703 in figure 5A, the control interface shown in figure 5B is displayed, it is clear that in a case where movement of a subject is detected in a direction in which movement of the current camera is restricted, if a user operates the interface to select a new camera and uses button 1703 to activated the control interface then a new user interface allowing for control of the newly selected camera would be displayed).
Regarding claim 20, Funagi in view of Kawabata and further in view of Wakamatsu discloses the control apparatus according to claim 1, however, Funagi fails to disclose wherein the plurality of imaging units is built in the control apparatus.
At the time of filing, there was a recognized problem or need in the art to provide a location for the cameras and the control apparatus. There were a finite number of identified and predictable potential solutions to the recognized need or problem which were:
Having the imaging units and the control unit separate; or
Make the imaging units and control unit integral.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success since all the solutions provide a location for the cameras and the control apparatus. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 21, Funagi in view of Kawabata and further in view of Wakamatsu discloses the control apparatus according to claim 1, in addition, Funagi discloses wherein the plurality of imaging units is disposed outside the control apparatus (figure 1 shows that the imaging devices 120 are disposed outside the control apparatus 140).
Regarding claim 22, Funagi in view of Kawabata and further in view of Wakamatsu discloses the control apparatus according to claim 1, in addition, Funagi discloses wherein the one or more processors execute the instructions to control to display the images acquired by the plurality of imaging units on the display unit (figure 5A shows that images from each of the cameras is displayed as disclosed at paragraph 72).
Claim 23, a method, corresponds to and is analyzed the same as the apparatus of claim 1.
Claim 24, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program for causing a computer to perform a control method for a control apparatus, corresponds to and is analyzed the same as the apparatus of claim 1.
Claims 3-6 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Funagi in view of Kawabata and further in view of Wakamatsu and further in view of Kim et al. (United States Patent Application Publication 2016/0189500), hereinafter referenced as Kim.
Regarding claim 3, Funagi in view of Kawabata and further in view of Wakamatsu discloses the control apparatus according to claim 1, however, Funagi fails to disclose wherein the one or more processors execute the instructions to, in a case where movement of the imaging unit acquiring the image where the object is detected in a first direction on the circumference is restricted, issue an instruction to move an imaging unit in a second direction opposite to the first direction on the circumference, the imaging unit being adjacent to the imaging unit acquiring the image where the object is detected in the second direction on the circumference.
Kim is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Kim teaches a camera system wherein the motivation of continuing to follow a subject when they move outside of a tracking range of a first camera would have prompted a predictable variation of Funagi by applying Kim’s known principal of in a case where movement of the imaging unit acquiring an image where the object is detected in a first direction is restricted, issue an instruction to move an imaging unit in a second direction, the imaging unit being adjacent to the imaging unit acquiring the image where the object is detected in the second direction on the circumference (figure 2B shows that when a first camera reaches its movement limit in a first direction and second camera is moved to take over tracking as disclosed at paragraph 54). When applying this known technique to the combination of Funagi in view of Kawabata in view the cameras are arrayed to move on a common circumference (as shown in figure 14B), when a first camera reach a limit (for example camera 1100 reaching limit P1), then it would have been obvious to move and adjacent camera in the direction of P1 in the opposite direction so that the second camera can take over tracking at position P1 (for example, camera 1300 would move in the counterclockwise direction to meet camera 1100 which moves to position P1 in a clockwise manner to reach position P1).
In view of the motivations such as continuing to follow a subject when they move outside of a tracking range of a first camera one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art system of Funagi.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 4, Funagi in view of Kawabata and further in view of Wakamatsu discloses the control apparatus according to claim 1, however, Funagi fails to disclose wherein the one or more processors execute the instructions to issue an instruction to move an imaging unit in a first direction on the circumference, the imaging unit being adjacent to the imaging unit acquiring the image where the object is detected in the first direction on the circumference.
Kim is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Kim teaches a camera system wherein the motivation of continuing to follow a subject when they move outside of a tracking range of a first camera would have prompted a predictable variation of Funagi by applying Kim’s known principal of moving an imaging unit in a first direction, the imaging unit being adjacent to the imaging unit acquiring the image where the object is detected in the first direction (figure 2B shows that when a first camera reaches its movement limit in a first direction and second camera is moved to take over tracking as disclosed at paragraph 54). When applying this known technique to the combination of Funagi in view of Kawabata in view the cameras are arrayed to move on a common circumference (as shown in figure 14B), when a first camera reach a limit (for example camera 1100 reaching limit P1), then it would have been obvious to transition to the next camera and continue tracking the person in the same direction (for example, when camera 1100 reaches limit P1, it would be obvious to switch tracking to camera 1300 and continue following the subject using camera P2 moving in the same direction which camera P1 stopped moving).
In view of the motivations such as continuing to follow a subject when they move outside of a tracking range of a first camera one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art system of Funagi.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 5, Funagi in view of Kawabata in view of Wakamatsu and further in view of Kim discloses the control apparatus according to claim 4, in addition, Kim discloses wherein the one or more processors execute the instructions to issue an instruction to move an imaging unit in a second direction opposite to the first direction on the circumference, the imaging unit being adjacent to the imaging unit acquiring the image where the object is detected in the second direction on the circumference (figure 2B shows that when a first camera reaches its movement limit in a first direction and second camera is moved to take over tracking as disclosed at paragraph 54). When applying this known technique to the combination of Funagi in view of Kawabata in view the cameras are arrayed to move on a common circumference (as shown in figure 14B), when a first camera reach a limit (for example camera 1100 reaching limit P1), then it would have been obvious to move and adjacent camera in the direction of P1 in the opposite direction so that the second camera can take over tracking at position P1 (for example, camera 1300 would move in the counterclockwise direction to meet camera 1100 which moves to position P1 in a clockwise manner to reach position P1).
Regarding claim 6, Funagi in view of Kawabata and further in view of Wakamatsu discloses the control apparatus according to claim 1, however, Funagi fails to disclose wherein the one or more processors execute the instructions to, in a case where an instruction to move the imaging unit acquiring the image where the object is detected in a first direction on the circumference is issued by an operation on the first graphical user interface, issue an instruction to move the imaging unit acquiring the image where the object is detected in the first direction and move an imaging unit in the first direction, the imaging unit being adjacent to the imaging unit acquiring the image where the object is detected in the first direction.
Kim is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Kim teaches a camera system wherein the motivation of continuing to follow a subject when they move outside of a tracking range of a first camera would have prompted a predictable variation of Funagi by applying Kim’s known principal of moving an imaging unit in a first direction, the imaging unit being adjacent to the imaging unit acquiring the image where the object is detected in the first direction (figure 2B shows that when a first camera reaches its movement limit in a first direction and second camera is moved to take over tracking as disclosed at paragraph 54). When applying this known technique to the combination of Funagi in view of Kawabata in view the cameras are arrayed to move on a common circumference (as shown in figure 14B), when a first camera reach a limit (for example camera 1100 reaching limit P1), then it would have been obvious to transition to the next camera and continue tracking the person in the same direction (for example, when camera 1100 reaches limit P1, it would be obvious to switch tracking to camera 1300 and continue following the subject using camera P2 moving in the same direction which camera P1 stopped moving).
In view of the motivations such as continuing to follow a subject when they move outside of a tracking range of a first camera one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art system of Funagi.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 19, Funagi in view of Kawabata and further in view of Wakamatsu discloses the control apparatus according to claim 18, however, Funagi fails to disclose wherein in a case where the movement of the imaging unit acquiring the image where the object is detected in the first direction on the circumference is restricted, control to switch display positions of the image of the imaging unit acquiring the image where the object is detected and the image of the imaging unit adjacent in the first direction.
Kim is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Kim teaches a camera system wherein the motivation of continuing to follow a subject when they move outside of a tracking range of a first camera would have prompted a predictable variation of Funagi by applying Kim’s known principal of switching from a first camera to a second camera when the first camera reaches a movement limit (figure 2B shows that when a first camera reaches its movement limit in a first direction and second camera is moved to take over tracking as disclosed at paragraph 54). When applying this known technique to Kawabata and further in view of Wakamatsu in which the display of the active camera is enlarged it would have been obvious that when the active camera is switched, as taught by, the display would also shift to display the new active camera’s image in place of the prior active camera’s image.
In view of the motivations such as continuing to follow a subject when they move outside of a tracking range of a first camera one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art system of Funagi.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Funagi in view of Kawabata and further in view of Wakamatsu and further in view of Oya et al. (United States Patent 6,208,379), hereinafter referenced as Oya.
Regarding claim 7, Funagi in view of Kawabata and further in view of Wakamatsu discloses the control apparatus according to claim 1, however, Funagi fails to disclose wherein whether to fix imaging ranges of the plurality of imaging units is settable for the respective imaging units.
Oya is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Oya teaches a camera system wherein the motivation of allowing an administrator to restrict access to areas which can be viewed thereby protecting the privacy of areas would have prompted a predictable variation of Funagi by applying Oya’s known principal of wherein whether to fix imaging ranges of the plurality of imaging units is settable for the respective imaging units (figure 29 shows a menu which allows a person to set whether or not imaging ranges of cameras are fixed as disclosed at column 15 lines 4-13).
In view of the motivations such as allowing an administrator to restrict access to areas which can be viewed thereby protecting the privacy of areas one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art system of Funagi.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Funagi in view of Kawabata and further in view of Wakamatsu and further in view of Kurata (Japanese Patent Publication 2000-092483). All text citations for Kurata refer to the attached machine translation.
Regarding claim 17, Funagi in view of Kawabata and further in view of Wakamatsu discloses the control apparatus according to claim 1, however, Funagi fails to disclose wherein the one or more processors execute the instructions to, in a case where the first graphical user interface is instructed to end or after a lapse of a predetermined time since the display of the first graphical interface, issue an instruction to restore imaging regions of all the plurality of imaging units to those immediately before the display of the first graphical user interface.
Kurata is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Kurata teaches a camera system wherein the motivation of allowing a user to quickly transition back to viewing multiple images would have prompted a predictable variation of Funagi by applying Kurata’s known principal of in a case where the first graphical user interface is instructed to end, issue an instruction to restore imaging regions of all the plurality of imaging units to those immediately before the display of the first graphical user interface (page 5 lines 8-11 teach that when an enlarged image is displayed, if the user instructs the large image to no longer be displayed, then the composite image is displayed in place of the enlarged image).
In view of the motivations such as allowing a user to quickly transition back to viewing multiple images one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art system of Funagi.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-14 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.
Claim 10 is objected to because the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest wherein the one or more processors execute the instructions to: in a first case, control to display the second graphical user interface, and control to display the first graphical user interface on the display based on the operation on the second graphical user interface; and in a second case, control to display the first graphical user interface on the display unit regardless of a user's operation, in combination with all of the elements of claims 1 and 9 from which it is dependent. The closest prior art of record, Funagi in view of Kawabata and further in view of Wakamatsu discloses the apparatus of claim 9 and displaying the claimed first and second graphical user interfaces. Wakamatsu further discloses transitioning to the first graphical user interface in response to the user operating the second graphical user interface (actuation of control 1703). However, nothing in the prior art teaches or suggest shifting to the first graphical user interface based on a user input in a first case and forcing a shift to the first user interface regardless of the user’s input in a second case. Therefore, the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest “wherein the one or more processors execute the instructions to: in a first case, control to display the second graphical user interface, and control to display the first graphical user interface on the display based on the operation on the second graphical user interface; and in a second case, control to display the first graphical user interface on the display unit regardless of a user's operation” as currently claimed.
Claims 11-14 are objected to due to their dependence on claim 10.
Citation of Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Omata et al. (United States Patent Application Publication 2023/0114363) discloses a camera system with cameras arranged around a common circumference.
Takayama (United States Patent Application Publication 2022/0132041) discloses a camera system with cameras arranged around a common circumference.
Numata (United States Patent Application Publication 2020/0396385) discloses a camera system with cameras arranged around a common circumference.
Niga (United States Patent Application Publication 2019/0349532) discloses a user interface for a surveillance system.
Yasutake et al. (United States Patent Application Publication 2019/0068892) discloses a camera system with cameras arranged around a common circumference.
Ida et al. (United States Patent Application Publication 2018/0091741) discloses a user interface for a surveillance system.
Chai et al. (United States Patent Application Publication 2015/0193127) discloses a user interface for a surveillance system.
Itoh et al. (United States Patent Application Publication 2015/0103178) teaches a method for controlling multiple cameras.
Jo (United States Patent Application Publication 2011/0157368) teaches a user interface for a surveillance system.
Buehler et al. (United States Patent Application Publication 2010/0002082) teaches a user interface for a surveillance system.
Tamir (United States Patent Application Publication 2006/0238617) teaches a user interface for a surveillance system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON A FLOHRE whose telephone number is (571)270-7238. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-3:00.
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, Sinh Tran can be reached at 571-272-7564. 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.
JASON A. FLOHRE
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2637
/JASON A FLOHRE/ Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2637
Prosecution Insights