DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: the “.” after “the camera to zoom out” should be changed to “,”.. Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
4. Claims 1-19 are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 12,272,230.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claims 1-21 of Patent No. 12,272,230 contain every element of claims 1-19 of the instant application and thus anticipate the claims of the instant application. Claims 1-19 of the instant application therefore are not patently distinct from the earlier patent claims and as such are unpatentable over obvious-type double patenting.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1,148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
6. Claims 1, 5-7, 11-13, and 17-19 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sumitomo (US Publication 2003/0185419), in view of Tchernihovski et al. (US Patent 5,693,943), and further in view of Rechsteiner et al. (US Patent 6,246,321).
Regarding claim 1, Sumitomo discloses a method of surveillance executed by a computer, the method comprising:
controlling a camera for covering an event regarding first sensing data, in response to receiving the first sensing data from a sensor (Sumitomo, fig. 3, step s2-s3, fig. 7, steps s11-s14, para’s 0064-0066, and 0083, in response to detecting the presence of an intruder using sensing data received from an infrared sensor “event regarding first sensing data”, control camera(s) to capture and record images);
controlling the camera to zoom out for covering the event regarding the first sensing data and an event regarding second sensing data in response to receiving the second sensing data by the sensor after the camera is controlled by the first sensing data, wherein the event regarding the second sensing data is different from the event regarding the first sensing data (Sumitomo, fig. 7, para. 0070, following the event of detection of the intruder, when the face of the intruder is identified, the process goes to step S15 where a camera for enlargement is selected for controlling image direction and image magnification; fig. 8(c), para’s 0073-0079, the imaging direction of the monitoring camera 2 selected for enlargement is changed to face the intruder corresponding to the abnormality occurring place “event regarding second sensing data”, the imaging direction of the monitoring camera 2A is turned to the intruder M1. The imaging magnification of the monitoring camera 2A selected for enlargement is changed; the monitoring camera 2A records the still image of the face of the intruder M1. Meanwhile, since the monitoring camera 2 for wide area, for example, the monitoring camera 2B in FIG. 8 (c) captures an object in the initial state, the monitoring camera 2B captures an image of the entire monitor area RM securely so as to be capable of recording a wide area image. Fig 8(d), para. 0079, in the case where the monitoring camera 2 set for wide area detects the face of the intruder and this intruder is different from the intruder to be zoomed in by the monitoring camera 2 for enlargement “event regarding the second sensing data”, for example as shown in FIG. 8(c), after the monitoring camera 2A records the enlarged image of the face of the intruder M1, the monitoring cameras 2 are switched between enlargement and wide area, so that the monitoring camera 2B records the enlarged image of the intruder M2 as shown in FIG. 8(d). Such a process enables the enlarged images of the plural intruders M1, M2 to be obtained. At this time, the other monitoring camera for wide area executes zoom imaging and wide-angle imaging. Accordingly, the event regarding the first sensing data is different from the event regarding the second sensing data. It is also noted that detecting an event according to received first sensing data, and receiving second sensing data of another event following the received first sensing data is well known in the art as is evidenced by Bart, US Patent 10,200,621, col. 10, line 65 through col. 11, line 50, detecting an event based on sensor data received from a sensor; col. 8, lines 58-67, detect an event of an intruder entering through a window, followed by another event of detecting one or more intruders exiting through the back door);
Sumimoto does not explicitly disclose wherein the sensor is configured to sense a first range wavelength, the first range of wavelength being different from a second range of wavelength which is sensed by the camera.
Tchernihovski discloses wherein the sensor is configured to sense a first range wavelength (Tchernihovski, col. 5, lines 14-16, sensor 12 is preferably responsive to infrared radiation in a wavelength range of between approximately 7 micrometers and approximately 14 micrometers).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Tchernihovski’s features Sumitomo’s invention for effectively performing surveillance operation by using infrared sensors for detecting, identifying, and tracking events.
Sumitomo-Tchernihovski does not explicitly disclose but Rechsteiner discloses wherein the first range of wavelength being different from a second range of wavelength which is sensed by the camera (Rechsteiner, col. 1, lines 46-49, the range of wavelengths of image sensor can be between 0.5 and 1.5 micrometers).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Rechsteiner’s features Sumitomo-Tchernihovski’s invention for effectively performing surveillance operation by using standard image sensors for detecting, identifying, and tracking events.
Regarding claim 5, Sumitomo-Tchernihovski-Rechsteiner discloses the method according to claim 1, further comprising receiving predetermined information for controlling the camera to zoom out, wherein the controlling the camera to zoom out is based on the predetermined information (Sumitomo, para’s 0079 and 0088, switching monitoring cameras between enlargement and wide area, and zooming images of an intruder as a static or a dynamic image are considered predetermined information).
Regarding claim 6, Sumitomo-Tchernihovski-Rechsteiner discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the second sensing data is next acquired after the first sensing data (Sumitomo, fig. 7, para. 0070, following the detection of the intruder, when the face of the intruder is not detected or identified, the process returns to step S11 for detecting intruder again; fig’s 8b-8d illustrate different face directions of intruders M1 and M2, and at this time, see para’s 0071-0077, and 0083, intruders M1 and M2 may be detected by the infrared sensor; para’s 0078-0082, in the case where the monitoring camera 2 set for wide area detects the face of the intruder and this intruder is identical to the intruder to be zoomed in by the monitoring camera 2 for enlargement during the process at steps S17 and S18, it is preferable that the monitoring camera is switched between enlargement and wide area. Namely, the monitoring camera 2 which has newly detected the face is switched into the monitoring camera 2 for enlargement and so as to zooms in the face area of the intruder and obtain the still image, and the monitoring camera 2 set for enlargement is switched into the monitoring camera 2 for wide area; it is also noted that detecting an event according to received first sensing data, and receiving second sensing data of another event following the received first sensing data is well known in the art as is evidenced by Bart, US Patent 10,200,621, col. 10, line 65 through col. 11, line 50, detecting an event based on sensor data received from a sensor; col. 8, lines 58-67, detect an event of an intruder entering through a window, followed by another event of detecting one or more intruders exiting through the back door).
Regarding claims 7, 11-13, and 17-18, these claims comprise limitations substantially the same as claims 1 and 5-6; therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons set forth. Sumitomo-Tchernihovski-Rechsteiner further discloses processors, memory, and computer-readable medium (see Sumitomo, para’s 0038-0041 and claim 12).
Regarding claim 19, Sumitomo-Tchernihovski-Rechsteiner discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the first range of wavelength is not visible (Sumitomo, para. 0083, intruder may be detected by an infrared sensor).
7. Claims 2-4, 8-10, and 14-16 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sumitomo-Tchernihovski-Rechsteiner, as applied to claims 1, 7 and 13 above, in view of Itani et al. (US Publication 2013/0197853).
Regarding claims 2 and 4, Sumitomo-Tchernihovski-Rechsteiner discloses the control system according to claim 1 further comprising infrared sensor(s) (Sumitomo, para. 0073, intruder may be detected by an infrared sensor).
Sumitomo-Tchernihovski-Rechsteiner does not explicitly disclose but Itani discloses wherein the sensor is configured to detect thermal information; and wherein the sensor positions a place, the place being different from a camera position in which the camera is positioned (Itani, para. 00026, thermal event module 420 may enable thermal detection system 120 to receive thermal event data, from sensor devices 110, corresponding to thermal activity occurring within detection zone; thermal sensors and other sensors cane be positioned at different place than the camera positioned).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Itani’s feature into Sumitomo-Tchernihovski-Rechsteiner’s invention for enhancing surveillance operation by using a wide range of sensors.
Regarding claim 3, Sumitomo-Tchernihovski-Rechsteiner-Itani discloses the control system according to claim 2, wherein the sensor includes an infrared sensor (Sumitomo, para. 0083, intruder may be detected by an infrared sensor).
Regarding claims 8-10, and 14-16, these claims comprise limitations substantially the same as claims 2-4; therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons set forth.
-------Conclusion
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LOI H TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5645. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00AM-5:00PM PST FIRST FRIDAY OF BIWEEK OFF.
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, THAI TRAN can be reached at 571-272-7382. 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.
/LOI H TRAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2484