DETAILED ACTION
I. 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 .
II. Priority
A. Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 120 and 35 U.S.C. 365(c) or 386(c) is acknowledged.
B. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) as well as the filing of the certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
III. Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,575,825 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the ‘825 patent anticipates instant claim 1. Specifically, claim 1 of the ‘825 patent recites
a control apparatus configured to be accessible by a plurality of first cameras that captures a subject of a first area in a facility, and a plurality of second cameras that capture differing subjects of a second area in the facility (col. 22, lines 13-16), the control apparatus comprising:
a selection unit configured to select a specific first camera of the plurality of first cameras that satisfies a predetermined condition in the plurality of first cameras (col. 22, lines 38-42);
a detection unit configured to detect a viewing direction of a person in the first area on the basis of image data of the subject captured by the specific first camera selected by the selection unit (col. 22, lines 43-47); and
a determination unit configured to determine a second camera that captures a specific subject from among the plurality of second cameras on the basis of the viewing direction of the person detected by the detection unit (col. 22, lines 22-32; {The claimed “specific subject” can be read as either the focus area or the focus subject recited in claim 1 of the ‘825 patent.}).
IV. Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: On lines 2 and 3, “plurality of second cameras that capture” should be “plurality of second cameras that captures”.
V. Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 recites allowable subject matter. The examiner has conducted a new, full search of the subject matter of claim 1 and maintains that it is allowable. The prior art fails to disclose a control apparatus accessible by a plurality of first cameras that captures a first subject (e.g., a spectator group) in a facility and a second plurality of second cameras that captures differing subjects in the facility (e.g., sports players on a field), the control apparatus comprising a selection unit configured to select a specific first camera of the plurality of first cameras that satisfies a predetermined condition in the plurality of first cameras, a detection unit configured to detect a viewing direction of a person in the first area on the basis of image data of the subject captured by the specific first camera selected by the selection unit, and a determination unit configured to determine a second camera that captures a specific subject from among the plurality of second cameras on the basis of the viewing direction of the person detected by the detection unit.
The prior art discloses a camera system comprising a plurality of first cameras that captures a spectator group and a plurality of second cameras that capture sports players on a field, where a specific second camera is selected for capturing an event on the field on the basis of a viewing direction of the spectator group determined from image data from the first cameras. Yoda et al. (US 2005/0046626 A1), used in rejection in the parent applications, is an example. However, Yoda et al. and the remaining prior art fail to disclose selection a specific first camera used to capture the spectator group based on a condition being satisfied. That is, Yoda et al. presumably uses video from each of the “first cameras” to determine viewing direction of the spectators; that is, no specific camera of the first cameras is selected for determining the viewing direction. Moreover, even if selection of all the first cameras to capture the spectator includes capture by a specific one, the selection of all the first cameras is not based on satisfaction of a condition as required by the claim.
VI. Additional Pertinent Prior Art
Cronin et al. (US 2016/0073010 A1) discloses a system comprising a plurality of first cameras that captures spectators at an event and a plurality of second cameras that captures the event. Based on a determination of an event occurrence, a specific first camera is selected to capture a reaction of a spectator. The spectator can then purchase a photo of himself or herself reacting to the event occurrence. However, a viewing direction determined from image data from the specific first camera is not used to select a second camera capturing the event occurrence. Rowley (US 2018/0350136 A1) discloses a camera system that creates an AR viewpoint model of an event for a spectator at the event based on the viewing direction of the spectator. See parent application, 18/093,118, for discussion of Aoki et al. (US 2017/0322017 A1).
VII. Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY J DANIELS whose telephone number is (571)272-7362. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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.
/ANTHONY J DANIELS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2637
6/25/2026
Prosecution Insights