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 papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Claim Amendments
Acknowledgment of receiving amendments to the claims, which were received by the Office on 09/10/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-7 and 10-21 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the same combination of references being used in the current rejection. Applicant’s arguments are directed solely to the claimed invention as amended 09/10/2026, which has been rejected under new ground of rejection necessitated by amendment. See rejection below for full detail.
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, 14-17 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ise (US 2024/0098356 A1) in view of Ichiba (US 2023/0308773 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ise teaches an image processing device comprising:
a storage unit including a storage device (Ise, Fig. 1, Storage unit 150, Paragraph 0061) and configured to store table information (Ise, Fig. 3, Paragraph 0061) in which at least imaging area identification information for identifying imaging areas of a camera of which an imaging area is changeable (Ise, Fig. 3, drive position 302, zoom position 303 and analysis region 304, Paragraph 0061-0063) and detection program identification information for identifying detection programs for detecting a predetermined object from an image captured by the camera are correlated (Ise, Fig. 3, analysis processing function 305 Paragraph 0063); and
a detection unit implemented by a hardware processor and configured to perform a process of identifying a detection program corresponding to an imaging area of the camera using the table information stored in the storage unit and detecting the object from the image captured by the camera using the identified detection program (Ise, Fig. 1, analysis processing unit 160, Paragraphs 0033, 0053, 0059 and 0081).
However, Ise does not teach imaging area identification information, detection program identification information, and preliminary process identification information for identifying a preliminary process to correct image distortion in an image captured by the camera before performing a process of detecting the object from the image captured by the camera using a detection program are correlated; perform a process of identifying the preliminary process corresponding to an imaging area of the camera using the table information stored in the storage unit and performing the identified preliminary process on the image captured by the camera; and detecting the object from the image subjected to the preliminary process.
In reference to Ichiba, Ichiba teaches preliminary process identification information for identifying a preliminary process to correct image distortion in an image captured by the camera before performing a process of detecting the object from the image captured by the camera using a detection program (Ichiba, Figs. 1, 7 and 9, Paragraphs 0048, 0050, 0121 and 0126-0130);
perform a process of identifying the preliminary process corresponding to an imaging area of the camera using the table information stored in the storage unit and performing the identified preliminary process on the image captured by the camera (Ichiba, Figs. 1, 7 and 9, Paragraphs 0048, 0050, 0121 and 0126-0130).
These arts are analogous since they are all related to imaging devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the invention of Ise with the teaching of using a plurality of cameras and distortion correction for the plurality of cameras as seen in Ichiba to allow for viewing other areas of a location and to correct for image distortion. Further, the imaging area identification information, the detection program identification information and preliminary process identification information would be correlated since imaging area identification information, detection program identification information and preliminary process identification information would be provided for each camera.
Claims 14-15 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Ise and Ichiba teaches the image processing device according to claim 1 (see claim 1 analysis), further comprising:
a control unit implemented by the hardware processor and configured to instruct the camera to set the imaging area of the camera to a predetermined imaging area (Ise, Fig. 1, Control unit 130, Paragraph 0052),
wherein the detection unit identifies the detection program using the table information on the basis of the imaging area identification information for identifying the predetermined imaging area set by the control unit (Ise, Fig. 3, Paragraphs 0059 and 0081).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Ise and Ichiba teaches the image processing device according to claim 2 (see claim 2 analysis), wherein the storage unit stores imaging schedule information in which at least imaging time information for defining a time at which an image is captured by the camera and the imaging area identification information are correlated (Ise, Fig. 3, preset patrol condition 306, Paragraphs 0054 and 0064), and
wherein the control unit instructs the camera on the basis of the imaging schedule information stored in the storage unit (Ise, Fig. 3, preset patrol condition 306, Paragraphs 0054 and 0064).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Ise and Ichiba teaches the image processing device according to claim 1 (see claim 1 analysis), wherein, when the camera sets the imaging area to a predetermined imaging area, the detection unit identifies the detection program using the table information on the basis of the imaging area identification information for identifying the predetermined imaging area transmitted from the camera (Ise, Fig. 3, Paragraphs 0055-0059 and 0081).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Ise and Ichiba teaches the image processing device according to claim 4 (see claim 4 analysis), further comprising:
a control unit implemented by the hardware processor (Ise, Fig. 1, Control unit 130, Paragraph 0052) and configured to cause the camera to set imaging schedule information in which at least imaging time information for defining a time at which an image is captured by the camera and the imaging area identification information are correlated (Ise, Fig. 3, preset patrol condition 306, Paragraphs 0054 and 0064).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Ise and Ichiba teaches the image processing device according to claim 1 (see claim 1 analysis), wherein the table information further correlates parameters used for the preliminary process with the preliminary process identification information (Ichiba, Figs. 7 and 9, Paragraphs 0121 and 0126-0130).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Ise and Ichiba teaches the image processing device according to claim 16 (see claim 16 analysis), wherein the parameters used for the preliminary process are correlated with the imaging area identification information in the table information (Ise, Fig. 3, Paragraph 0061, Ichiba, Figs. 7 and 9, Paragraphs 0121 and 0126-0130, The parameters used for the preliminary process and the imaging area identification information are correlated since they would be for a same camera.).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Ise and Ichiba teaches the image processing device according to claim 1 (see claim 1 analysis), wherein the table information correlates respective preliminary process identification information with each of a plurality of the imaging areas of the camera, and different preliminary process identification information is correlated with different imaging areas among the plurality of the imaging areas (Ise, Fig. 3, Paragraph 0061, Ichiba, Fig. 9, Paragraphs 0126-0130, Different imaging areas have different coordinates. Therefore, different preliminary process identification information (different sets of coordinates in the remap table) are correlated with different imaging areas.).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Ise and Ichiba teaches the image processing device according to claim 19 (see claim 19 analysis), wherein the same detection program identification information is correlated with two imaging areas among the plurality of the imaging areas (Ise, Fig. 3, analysis processing function 305, Paragraph 0063, An analysis processing function may be assigned to multiple regions.) with which the different preliminary process identification information is correlated (Ichiba, Fig. 9, Paragraphs 0126-0130, Different imaging areas having different would have different preliminary process identification information (different sets of coordinates in the remap table).).
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ise (US 2024/0098356 A1) in view of Ichiba (US 2023/0308773 A1) in view of Kinno et al. (US 2020/0242541 A1).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Ise and Ichiba teaches the image processing device according to claim 3 (see claim 3 analysis), wherein the table information is in which camera identification information for identifying a plurality of cameras (Ichiba, Figs. 1, 7 and 9, Paragraphs 0048, 0050, 0121 and 0126-0130), information in which the imaging area identification information, the detection program identification information (Ise, Fig. 3, Elements 302-305) and the preliminary process identification information are correlated (Ichiba, Figs. 1, 7 and 9, Paragraphs 0048, 0050, 0121 and 0126-0130),
wherein the imaging schedule information is information in which the imaging time information and the imaging area identification information are correlated (Ise, Fig. 3, Elements 302-304 and 306).
However, the combination of Ise and Ichiba does not teach wherein the table information is information in which camera identification information for identifying a plurality of cameras, wherein the imaging schedule information is information in which the imaging time information, the camera identification information, and the imaging area identification information are correlated, and wherein the detection unit and the control unit identify the camera using the camera identification information.
In reference to Kinno et al. (hereafter referred as Kinno), Kinno teaches wherein the table information is information in which camera identification information for identifying a plurality of cameras (Kinno, Fig. 4, Camera ID 411, Paragraph 0067) and the imaging area identification information are correlated (Kinno, Fig. 4, camera position 413, Paragraph 0067),
wherein the imaging schedule information is information in which the imaging time information (Kinno, Fig. 4, Timing 412, Paragraph 0067), the camera identification information (Kinno, Fig. 4, Camera ID 411, Paragraph 0067), and the imaging area identification information are correlated (Kinno, Fig. 4, camera position 413, Paragraph 0067), and
wherein the control unit identify the camera using the camera identification information (Kinno, Paragraph 0067).
These arts are analogous since they are all related to controlling cameras. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the combination of Ise and Ichiba with the teaching of using multiple cameras controlled by single information processing apparatus using camera identification information as seen in Kinno to allow for viewing other areas of a location. Further, the camera identification information, the imaging area identification information, and the detection program identification information would be correlated since imaging area identification information and detection program identification information would be provided for each camera and the detection unit and the control unit would identify the camera using the camera identification information.
Claim 7 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 6.
Claim(s) 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ise (US 2024/0098356 A1) in view of Ichiba (US 2023/0308773 A1) in view of Bessou (US 2019/0098196 A1).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Ise and Ichiba teaches the image processing device according to claim 3 (see claim 3 analysis). However, the combination of Ise and Ichiba does not teach wherein the control unit performs control such that imaging conditions of the camera are changed according to the image captured by the camera.
In reference to Bessou, Bessou teaches wherein the control unit performs control such that imaging conditions of the camera are changed according to the image captured by the camera (Bessou, Paragraphs 0017-0020).
These arts are analogous since they are all related to imaging devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the combination of Ise and Ichiba with the teaching of changing imaging conditions according to the image as seen in Bessou to allow the device to capture an image with proper exposure.
Claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 10.
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ise (US 2024/0098356 A1) in view of Ichiba (US 2023/0308773 A1) in view of Takatsuka et al. (US 2021/0256286 A1).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Ise and Ichiba teaches the image processing device according to claim 3 (see claim 3 analysis). However, the combination of Ise and Ichiba does not teach wherein the control unit changes the imaging time information according to a state of the object detected by the detection unit.
In reference to Takatsuka et al. (hereafter referred as Takatsuka), Takatsuka teaches changing an imaging time information according to a state of the object detected by a detection unit (Takatsuka, Paragraphs 0693-0694).
These arts are analogous since they are all related to controlling cameras. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the combination of Ise and Ichiba with the teaching of changing an imaging time information according to a state of the object detected by the detection unit as seen in Takatsuka to adaptively increase or decrease the amount of processed data without degrading the object detection performance (Takatsuka, Paragraph 0694).
Claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 12.
Claim(s) 18 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ise (US 2024/0098356 A1) in view of Ichiba (US 2023/0308773 A1) in view of Qin et al. (US 2023/0292020 A1).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Ise and Ichiba teaches the image processing device according to claim 1 (see claim 1 analysis), wherein the preliminary process identified using the table information is distortion correction (Ichiba, Paragraph 0034-0036 and 0114).
However, the combination of Ise and Ichiba does not explicitly state wherein the preliminary process identified using the table information is one of barrel-shaped distortion correction, bobbin-shaped distortion correction, trapezoidal distortion correction, and projection conversion.
In reference to Qin et al. (hereafter referred as Qin), Qin teaches a lens distortion correction is one of barrel-shaped distortion correction (Qin, Fig. 2-3, Paragraph 0072), and bobbin-shaped distortion correction (Qin, Paragraph 0077, Pincushion distortion correction is bobbin-shaped distortion correction).
These arts are analogous since they are all related to cameras. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the combination of Ise and Ichiba with the teaching of correcting for barrel-shaped distortion or bobbin-shaped distortion as seen in Qin since they are common types of lens distortion and would allow the device to correct images having lens distortion.
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Ise and Ichiba teaches the image processing device according to claim 1 (see claim 1 analysis). However, the combination of Ise and Ichiba does not teach wherein the image distortion corrected by the preliminary process is at least one of image distortion caused due to lens characteristics of the camera that change according to a degree of zoom and image distortion caused due to a positional relationship between the camera and the object.
In reference to Qin, Qin teaches wherein the image distortion corrected by the preliminary process is at least one of image distortion caused due to lens characteristics of the camera that change according to a degree of zoom and image distortion caused due to a positional relationship between the camera and the object (Qin, Paragraph 0076, 0081, 0083 and 0087).
These arts are analogous since they are all related to cameras. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the combination of Ise and Ichiba with the teaching of correcting for lens distortion based on zoom as seen in Qin to allow the device to correct images taken at different zoom levels.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 14-17 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petruk (US 2018/0253619 A1) in view of Walli et al. (US 2022/0300747 A1) in view of Takami (US 2021/0092303 A1) in view of Ichiba (US 2023/0308773 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Petruk teaches an image processing device comprising:
a storage unit including a storage device (Petruk, Fig. 1, Storage 100, Paragraph 0018),
identifying imaging areas of a camera of which an imaging area is changeable (Petruk, Fig. 2, Block 204, Paragraphs 0017, 0032 and 0040);
a detection unit implemented by a hardware processor and configured to perform detecting the object from the image captured by the camera using a detection program (Petruk, Fig. 2, Blocks 206-210, Paragraphs 0033-0035).
However, Petruk does not teach the storage unit configured to store table information in which at least imaging area identification information for identifying imaging areas of a camera of which an imaging area is changeable, detection program identification information for identifying detection programs for detecting a predetermined object from an image captured by the camera, and preliminary process identification information for identifying a preliminary process to correct image distortion in an image captured by the camera before performing a process of detecting the object from the image captured by the camera using a detection program are correlated; and the detection unit configured to: perform a process of identifying the preliminary process corresponding to an imaging area of the camera using the table information stored in the storage unit and performing the identified preliminary process on the image captured by the camera; and perform a process of identifying a detection program corresponding to an imaging area of the camera using the table information stored in the storage unit and detecting the object from the image subjected to the preliminary process using the identified detection program.
In reference to Walli et al. (hereafter referred as Walli), Walli teaches correlating imaging area identification information for identifying imaging areas of a camera of which an imaging area is changeable (Walli, Fig. 3, R.O.I. 304-1 and 304-2, Paragraph 0058) and detection program identification information for identifying detection programs for detecting a predetermined object from an image captured by the camera (Walli, Fig. 3, image processing model coordinator 330, image processing model 342-1 and 342-2, Paragraphs 0058-0062); and
a detection unit configured to perform a process of identifying a detection program corresponding to an imaging area of the cameras using the information and detecting the object using the identified detection program (Walli, Fig. 3, image processing model coordinator 330, image processing model 342-1 and 342-2, Paragraphs 0058-0062).
These arts are analogous since they are both related to reading instrumentation information from camera images. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the invention of Petruk with the method of using different image processing models based on the type of instrumentation as seen in Walli to allow the device to process different types of instrumentation.
However, the combination of Petruk and Walli does not teach a storage unit configured to store table information in which at least imaging area identification information for identifying imaging areas of a camera of which an imaging area is changeable, detection program identification information for identifying detection programs for detecting a predetermined object from an image captured by the camera and preliminary process identification information for identifying a preliminary process to correct image distortion in an image captured by the camera before performing a process of detecting the object from the image captured by the camera using a detection program are correlated; and perform a process of identifying the preliminary process corresponding to an imaging area of the camera using the table information stored in the storage unit and performing the identified preliminary process on the image captured by the camera; and detecting the object from the image subjected to the preliminary process.
In reference to Takami, Takami teaches a storage unit configured to store table information in which at least imaging area identification information for identifying imaging areas of a camera of which an imaging area is changeable (Takami, Fig. 5, detection region and/or PTZ value, Paragraphs 0046 and 0051-0052) and detection program identification information for identifying detection programs for detecting a predetermined object from an image captured by the camera are correlated (Takami, Fig. 5, Paragraphs 0034 and 0050, The detection rule is considered to be the detection program since the detection rules are for object detection.).
These arts are analogous since they are all related to detecting objects in an image. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the combination of Petruk and Walli with the teaching of storing a table information correlation the imaging area identification information and detection program identification information as seen in Takami quickly determine the type of detection for the imaging area or allow for user control for the type of detection for the imaging area.
However, the combination of Petruk, Walli and Takami does not teach imaging area identification information, detection program identification information, and preliminary process identification information for identifying a preliminary process to correct image distortion in an image captured by the camera before performing a process of detecting the object from the image captured by the camera using a detection program are correlated; perform a process of identifying the preliminary process corresponding to an imaging area of the camera using the table information stored in the storage unit and performing the identified preliminary process on the image captured by the camera; and detecting the object from the image subjected to the preliminary process.
In reference to Ichiba, Ichiba teaches preliminary process identification information for identifying a preliminary process to correct image distortion in an image captured by the camera before performing a process of detecting the object from the image captured by the camera using a detection program (Ichiba, Figs. 1, 7 and 9, Paragraphs 0048, 0050, 0121 and 0126-0130);
perform a process of identifying the preliminary process corresponding to an imaging area of the camera using the table information stored in the storage unit and performing the identified preliminary process on the image captured by the camera (Ichiba, Figs. 1, 7 and 9, Paragraphs 0048, 0050, 0121 and 0126-0130).
These arts are analogous since they are all related to imaging devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the combination of Petruk, Walli and Takami with the teaching of using a plurality of cameras and distortion correction for the plurality of cameras as seen in Ichiba to allow for viewing other areas of a location and to correct for image distortion. Further, the imaging area identification information, the detection program identification information and preliminary process identification information would be correlated since imaging area identification information, detection program identification information and preliminary process identification information would be provided for each camera.
Claims 14-15 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Petruk, Walli, Takami and Ichiba teaches the image processing device according to claim 1 (see claim 1 analysis), further comprising:
a control unit implemented by the hardware processor configured to instruct the camera to set the imaging area of the camera to a predetermined imaging area (Petruk, Fig. 2, Block 204, Paragraphs 0017, 0032 and 0040),
wherein the detection unit identifies the detection program using the table information on the basis of the imaging area identification information for identifying the predetermined imaging area set by the control unit (Walli, Fig. 3, image processing model coordinator 330, image processing model 342-1 and 342-2, Paragraphs 0058-0062, Takami, Fig. 5, Paragraphs 0034 and 0050).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Petruk, Walli, Takami and Ichiba teaches the image processing device according to claim 1 (see claim 1 analysis), wherein, when the camera sets the imaging area to the predetermined imaging area, the detection unit identifies the detection program using the table information on the basis of the imaging area identification information for identifying the predetermined imaging area transmitted from the camera (Takami, Fig. 5, Paragraphs 0034 and 0050).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Petruk, Walli, Takami and Ichiba teaches the image processing device according to claim 1 (see claim 1 analysis), wherein the table information further correlates parameters used for the preliminary process with the preliminary process identification information (Ichiba, Figs. 7 and 9, Paragraphs 0121 and 0126-0130).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Petruk, Walli, Takami and Ichiba teaches the image processing device according to claim 16 (see claim 16 analysis), wherein the parameters used for the preliminary process are correlated with the imaging area identification information in the table information (Takami, Fig. 5, Paragraphs 0046 and 0050, Ichiba, Figs. 7 and 9, Paragraphs 0121 and 0126-0130, The parameters used for the preliminary process and the imaging area identification information (detection region and/or PTZ value) are correlated since they would be for a same camera.).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Petruk, Walli, Takami and Ichiba teaches the image processing device according to claim 1 (see claim 1 analysis), wherein the table information correlates respective preliminary process identification information with each of a plurality of the imaging areas of the camera, and different preliminary process identification information is correlated with different imaging areas among the plurality of the imaging areas (Takami, Fig. 5, Paragraphs 0046 and 0050, Ichiba, Fig. 9, Paragraphs 0126-0130, Different imaging areas (detection regions) have different coordinates. Therefore, different preliminary process identification information (different sets of coordinates in the remap table) are correlated with different imaging areas.).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Petruk, Walli, Takami and Ichiba teaches the image processing device according to claim 19 (see claim 19 analysis), wherein the same detection program identification information is correlated with two imaging areas among the plurality of the imaging areas with which the different preliminary process identification information is correlated (Takami, Fig. 5, Paragraphs 0046 and 0050, Different imaging areas may have the same detection rule., Ichiba, Fig. 9, Paragraphs 0126-0130, Different imaging areas having different would have different preliminary process identification information (different sets of coordinates in the remap table).).
Claim(s) 3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petruk (US 2018/0253619 A1) in view of Walli et al. (US 2022/0300747 A1) in view of Takami (US 2021/0092303 A1) in view of Ichiba (US 2023/0308773 A1) in view of Ise (US 2024/0098356 A1).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Petruk, Walli, Takami and Ichiba teaches the image processing device according to claim 2 (see claim 2 analysis), further comprising imaging schedule information in which at least imaging time information for defining a time at which an image is captured (Petruk, Paragraph 0040).
However, the combination of Petruk, Walli, Takami and Ichiba does not teach wherein the storage unit stores imaging schedule information in which at least imaging time information for defining a time at which an image is captured by the camera and the imaging area identification information are correlated, and wherein the control unit instructs the camera on the basis of the imaging schedule information stored in the storage unit.
In reference to Ise, Ise teaches wherein the storage unit stores imaging schedule information in which at least imaging time information for defining a time at which an image is captured by the camera and the imaging area identification information are correlated (Ise, Fig. 3, preset patrol condition 306, Paragraphs 0054 and 0064), and
wherein the control unit instructs the camera on the basis of the imaging schedule information stored in the storage unit (Ise, Fig. 3, preset patrol condition 306, Paragraphs 0054 and 0064).
These arts are analogous since they are all related to imaging devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the combination of Petruk, Walli, Takami and Ichiba with the scheduling information as seen in Ise to allow for setting specific times for capturing the images.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Petruk, Walli, Takami and Ichiba teaches the image processing device according to claim 4 (see claim 4 analysis), further comprising imaging schedule information in which at least imaging time information for defining a time at which an image is captured (Petruk, Paragraph 0040).
However, the combination of Petruk, Walli, Takami and Ichiba does not teach a control unit implemented by the hardware processor and configured to cause the camera to set image schedule information in which at least imaging time information for defining a time at which an image is captured by the camera and the imaging area identification information are correlated.
In reference to Ise, Ise teaches a control unit (Ise, Fig. 1, Control unit 130, Paragraph 0052) configured to cause the camera to set image schedule information in which at least imaging time information for defining a time at which an image is captured by the camera and the imaging area identification information are correlated (Ise, Fig. 3, preset patrol condition 306, Paragraphs 0054 and 0064).
These arts are analogous since they are all related to imaging devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the combination of Petruk, Walli, Takami and Ichiba with the scheduling information as seen in Ise to allow for setting specific times for capturing the images.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Petruk (US 2018/0253619 A1) in view of Walli et al. (US 2022/0300747 A1) in view of Takami (US 2021/0092303 A1) in view of Ichiba (US 2023/0308773 A1) in view of Ise (US 2024/0098356 A1) in view of Kinno et al. (US 2020/0242541 A1).
Regarding claim 6, the combination Petruk, Walli, Takami, Ichiba and Ise teaches the image processing device according to claim 3 (see claim 3 analysis), wherein the table information is in which camera identification information for identifying a plurality of cameras (Ichiba, Figs. 1, 7 and 9, Paragraphs 0048, 0050, 0121 and 0126-0130), information in which the imaging area identification information, the detection program identification information (Takami, Fig. 5) and the preliminary process identification information are correlated (Ichiba, Figs. 1, 7 and 9, Paragraphs 0048, 0050, 0121 and 0126-0130),
wherein the imaging schedule information is information in which the imaging time information and the imaging area identification information are correlated (Ise, Fig. 3, Elements 302-304 and 306).
However, the combination of Petruk, Walli, Takami, Ichiba and Ise does not teach wherein the table information is information in which camera identification information for identifying a plurality of cameras, wherein the imaging schedule information is information in which the imaging time information, the camera identification information, and the imaging area identification information are correlated, and wherein the detection unit and the control unit identify the camera using the camera identification information.
In reference to Kinno et al. (hereafter referred as Kinno), Kinno teaches wherein the table information is information in which camera identification information for identifying a plurality of cameras (Kinno, Fig. 4, Camera ID 411, Paragraph 0067) and the imaging area identification information are correlated (Kinno, Fig. 4, camera position 413, Paragraph 0067),
wherein the imaging schedule information is information in which the imaging time information (Kinno, Fig. 4, Timing 412, Paragraph 0067), the camera identification information (Kinno, Fig. 4, Camera ID 411, Paragraph 0067), and the imaging area identification information are correlated (Kinno, Fig. 4, camera position 413, Paragraph 0067), and
wherein the control unit identify the camera using the camera identification information (Kinno, Paragraph 0067).
These arts are analogous since they are all related to controlling cameras. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the combination of Petruk, Walli, Takami, Ichiba and Ise with the teaching of using multiple cameras controlled by single information processing apparatus using camera identification information as seen in Kinno to allow for viewing other areas of a location. Further, the camera identification information, the imaging area identification information, and the detection program identification information would be correlated since imaging area identification information and detection program identification information would be provided for each camera and the detection unit and the control unit would identify the camera using the camera identification information.
Claim 7 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 6.
Claim(s) 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petruk (US 2018/0253619 A1) in view of Walli et al. (US 2022/0300747 A1) in view of Takami (US 2021/0092303 A1) in view of Ichiba (US 2023/0308773 A1) in view of Ise (US 2024/0098356 A1) in view of Bessou (US 2019/0098196 A1).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Petruk, Walli, Takami, Ichiba and Ise teaches the image processing device according to claim 3 (see claim 3 analysis). However, the combination of Petruk, Walli, Takami, Ichiba and Ise does not teach wherein the control unit performs control such that imaging conditions of the camera are changed according to the image captured by the camera.
In reference to Bessou, Bessou teaches wherein the control unit performs control such that imaging conditions of the camera are changed according to the image captured by the camera (Bessou, Paragraphs 0017-0020).
These arts are analogous since they are all related to imaging devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the combination of Petruk, Walli, Takami, Ichiba and Ise with the teaching of changing imaging conditions according to the image as seen in Bessou to allow the device to capture an image with proper exposure.
Claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 10.
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petruk (US 2018/0253619 A1) in view of Walli et al. (US 2022/0300747 A1) in view of Takami (US 2021/0092303 A1) in view of Ichiba (US 2023/0308773 A1) in view of Ise (US 2024/0098356 A1) in view of Takatsuka et al. (US 2021/0256286 A1).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Petruk, Walli, Takami, Ichiba and Ise teaches the image processing device according to claim 3 (see claim 3 analysis). However, the combination of Petruk, Walli, Takami, Ichiba and Ise does not teach wherein the control unit changes the imaging time information according to a state of the object detected by the detection unit.
In reference to Takatsuka et al. (hereafter referred as Takatsuka), Takatsuka teaches changing an imaging time information according to a state of the object detected by a detection unit (Takatsuka, Paragraphs 0693-0694).
These arts are analogous since they are all related to controlling cameras. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the combination of Petruk, Walli, Takami, Ichiba and Ise with the teaching of changing an imaging time information according to a state of the object detected by the detection unit as seen in Takatsuka to adaptively increase or decrease the amount of processed data without degrading the object detection performance (Takatsuka, Paragraph 0694).
Claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 12.
Claim(s) 18 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petruk (US 2018/0253619 A1) in view of Walli et al. (US 2022/0300747 A1) in view of Takami (US 2021/0092303 A1) in view of Ichiba (US 2023/0308773 A1) in view of Qin et al. (US 2023/0292020 A1).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Petruk, Walli, Takami and Ichiba teaches the image processing device according to claim 1 (see claim 1 analysis), wherein the preliminary process identified using the table information is distortion correction (Ichiba, Paragraph 0034-0036 and 0114).
However, the combination of Petruk, Walli, Takami and Ichiba does not explicitly state wherein the preliminary process identified using the table information is one of barrel-shaped distortion correction, bobbin-shaped distortion correction, trapezoidal distortion correction, and projection conversion.
In reference to Qin, Qin teaches a lens distortion correction is one of barrel-shaped distortion correction (Qin, Fig. 2-3, Paragraph 0072), and bobbin-shaped distortion correction (Qin, Paragraph 0077, Pincushion distortion correction is bobbin-shaped distortion correction).
These arts are analogous since they are all related to cameras. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the combination of Petruk, Walli, Takami and Ichiba with the teaching of correcting for barrel-shaped distortion or bobbin-shaped distortion as seen in Qin since they are common types of lens distortion and would allow the device to correct images having lens distortion.
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Petruk, Walli, Takami and Ichiba teaches the image processing device according to claim 1 (see claim 1 analysis). However, the combination of Petruk, Walli, Takami and Ichiba does not teach wherein the image distortion corrected by the preliminary process is at least one of image distortion caused due to lens characteristics of the camera that change according to a degree of zoom and image distortion caused due to a positional relationship between the camera and the object.
In reference to Qin, Qin teaches wherein the image distortion corrected by the preliminary process is at least one of image distortion caused due to lens characteristics of the camera that change according to a degree of zoom and image distortion caused due to a positional relationship between the camera and the object (Qin, Paragraph 0076, 0081, 0083 and 0087).
These arts are analogous since they are all related to cameras. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the combination of Petruk, Walli, Takami and Ichiba with the teaching of correcting for lens distortion based on zoom as seen in Qin to allow the device to correct images taken at different zoom levels.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WESLEY JASON CHIU whose telephone number is (571)270-1312. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 8am-4pm.
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, Twyler Haskins can be reached at (571) 272-7406. 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.
/WESLEY J CHIU/ Examiner, Art Unit 2639
/TWYLER L HASKINS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2639
