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 § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 2-4, 9-11, and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2005-026980 A to Miyazaki et al., hereinafter, “Miyazaki”.
Claim 2. Miyazaki teaches An information processing system comprising: [0003] An imaging system that counts the number of passing persons
a memory storing instructions; [0041] a RAM 62 that stores images and various data output from the imaging unit 4
and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to: [0041] the main control unit 6 includes a main CPU 61 serving as a main body thereof
detect a person in a captured image; [0024] the imaging device 1 detects a person in the passage 9
specify a movement of the person from the captured image; [0041] detects people and counts the number of passages is introduced, and the movement route and the number of movements of customers in the store are obtained
determine a processing mode for the captured image based on the movement of the person and a place information where the captured image being captured; [0005] detects people and counts the number of passages is introduced, and the movement route and the number of movements of customers in the store (equivalent of place) are obtained.
[0089]…when the state of the moving body in the passage is abnormal, the state of the moving body can be observed in detail with a visible image by switching the operation mode of the imaging device 1 from the counting mode to the monitoring mode. (interpreted as processing mode)
and execute processing for the captured image, the processing corresponding to the processing mode. [0026] a monitoring mode process for acquiring a monitoring image indicating the state in the store is performed (step S6). This monitoring mode process is also continued until the operation mode is switched to the counting mode (No in step S8).
Claim 3. Miyazaki teaches wherein the movement of a person is related to an object. [0005] detect people and count their number of passes in stores such as supermarkets and convenience stores, determine customer movement routes and the number of movements within the store, and develop sales strategies based on these data. Examiner takes official notice that it is well-known in the art that a customer’s movement in a store includes interacting with item (object).
Claim 4. Miyazaki teaches wherein the movement of a person is leaving an object by the person. [0005] detect people and count their number of passes in stores such as supermarkets and convenience stores, determine customer movement routes and the number of movements within the store, and develop sales strategies based on these data. Examiner takes official notice that it is well-known in the art that a customer’s movement in a store includes interacting (remove/place) with item (object).
Claim 9. Reviewed and analyzed in the same way as claim 2. See the above analysis and rationale.
Claim 10. Reviewed and analyzed in the same way as claim 3. See the above analysis and rationale.
Claim 11. Reviewed and analyzed in the same way as claim 4. See the above analysis and rationale.
Claim 16. Reviewed and analyzed in the same way as claim 2. See the above analysis and rationale.
Claim 17. Reviewed and analyzed in the same way as claim 3. See the above analysis and rationale.
Claim 18. Reviewed and analyzed in the same way as claim 4. See the above analysis and rationale.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 5-8, 12-15 and 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2005-026980 A to Miyazaki et al., hereinafter, “Miyazaki” in view of Intelligent Collaborative Surveillance System to Kumar et al., hereinafter, “Kumar”.
Claim 5. Miyazaki fails to explicitly teach set a plurality of cameras. Kumar, in the field of surveillance, teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to: set a plurality of cameras; Fig.1. The figure shows a house which has nine surveillance cameras (numbered)
[Fig. 1] shows a plurality of cameras
specify the movement of the person from the plurality of cameras; [Fig. 1] Initially, Camera1 is ON and all the others are switched OFF. The software is intelligently configured to switch cameras ON and OFF based on the direction of motion recorded in the camera. When a person enters the house, Camera1 records activity and the direction of motion is determined. Since the direction of motion indicates that the person has entered the building, the next camera in the line, Camera2 is switched ON.
and determine the processing mode for each of the plurality of cameras based on the movement of the person. [Fig. 1] When a person enters the house, Camera1 records activity and the direction of motion is determined. Since the direction of motion indicates that the person has entered the building, the next camera in the line, Camera2 is switched ON. Examiner interprets ON and OFF to be recording ON or recording OFF, hence processing mode.
Fig 1. Demonstrates cameras 1 and 2 are ON, while cameras 3-9 are OFF.
[Fig. 1] Similarly, if a person moves left in the image of Camera2, Cameras 3 and 4 are switched ON. In the event of chaos, all the cameras are switched ON as shown in Fig. 2.
Thus, before the effective filing date of the present application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Miyazaki with the teachings of Kumar [Abstract] for a new surveillance strategy and its implementation, in which multiple cameras work in a collaborative manner in order to reduce the number of effective video streams.
Claim 6. Kumar further teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to: determine a plurality of processing modes for each the camera, [Fig. 1] Initially, Camera1 is ON and all the others are switched OFF. The software is intelligently configured to switch cameras ON and OFF based on the direction of motion recorded in the camera. When a person enters the house, Camera1 records activity and the direction of motion is determined. Since the direction of motion indicates that the person has entered the building, the next camera in the line, Camera2 is switched ON.
Fig 1. Demonstrates cameras 1 and 2 are ON, while cameras 3-9 are OFF.
and execute processing for the captured image, the processing corresponding to the plurality of processing mode. [Fig. 1] Initially, Camera1 is ON and all the others are switched OFF. The software is intelligently configured to switch cameras ON and OFF based on the direction of motion recorded in the camera. When a person enters the house, Camera1 records activity and the direction of motion is determined. Examiner interprets when camera is ON (mode), the camera records the activity (executing).
Claim 7. Miyazaki fails to explicitly teach set a plurality of regions in the captured image. Kumar, in the field of surveillance, teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to: set a plurality of regions in the captured image; Fig.1. The figure shows a house which has nine surveillance cameras (numbered)
[Fig. 1] shows a plurality of regions
[Introduction] surveillance systems monitor the activities in a particular region of interest and are often used for different purposes. The main objective of a surveillance system is to provide information about the relevant activities happening in a particular region of interest.
specify the movement of the person from the plurality of regions in the captured image; [Fig. 1] Initially, Camera1 is ON and all the others are switched OFF. The software is intelligently configured to switch cameras ON and OFF based on the direction of motion recorded in the camera. When a person enters the house, Camera1 records activity and the direction of motion is determined. Since the direction of motion indicates that the person has entered the building, the next camera in the line, Camera2 is switched ON.
and determine the processing mode for each of the plurality of regions based on the movement of the person [Fig. 1] When a person enters the house, Camera1 records activity and the direction of motion is determined. Since the direction of motion indicates that the person has entered the building, the next camera in the line, Camera2 is switched ON. Examiner interprets ON and OFF to be recording ON or recording OFF, hence processing mode.
Fig 1. Demonstrates cameras 1 and 2 are ON, while cameras 3-9 are OFF.
[Fig. 1] Similarly, if a person moves left in the image of Camera2, Cameras 3 and 4 are switched ON. In the event of chaos, all the cameras are switched ON as shown in Fig. 2.
Thus, before the effective filing date of the present application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Miyazaki with the teachings of Kumar [Abstract] for a new surveillance strategy and its implementation, in which multiple cameras work in a collaborative manner in order to reduce the number of effective video streams.
Claim 8. Miyazaki fails to explicitly teach the processing mode differs for each of the plurality of regions. Kumar, in the field of surveillance, teaches wherein the processing mode differs for each of the plurality of regions. [Fig. 1] When a person enters the house, Camera1 records activity and the direction of motion is determined. Since the direction of motion indicates that the person has entered the building, the next camera in the line, Camera2 is switched ON. Examiner interprets ON and OFF to be recording ON or recording OFF, hence different processing mode.
Fig 1. Demonstrates cameras 1 and 2 are ON, while cameras 3-9 are OFF.
[Fig. 1] Similarly, if a person moves left in the image of Camera2, Cameras 3 and 4 are switched ON. In the event of chaos, all the cameras are switched ON as shown in Fig. 2.
Thus, before the effective filing date of the present application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Miyazaki with the teachings of Kumar [Abstract] for a new surveillance strategy and its implementation, in which multiple cameras work in a collaborative manner in order to reduce the number of effective video streams.
Claim 12. Reviewed and analyzed in the same way as claim 5. See the above analysis and rationale.
Claim 13. Reviewed and analyzed in the same way as claim 6. See the above analysis and rationale.
Claim 14. Reviewed and analyzed in the same way as claim 7. See the above analysis and rationale.
Claim 15. Reviewed and analyzed in the same way as claim 8. See the above analysis and rationale.
Claim 19. Reviewed and analyzed in the same way as claim 5. See the above analysis and rationale.
Claim 20. Reviewed and analyzed in the same way as claim 6. See the above analysis and rationale.
Claim 21. Reviewed and analyzed in the same way as claim 7. See the above analysis and rationale.
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 2 and (similarly recited claims 9 and 16) are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No.12682648 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the present application is a broader scope of the already patent US 12682648 B2, therefore this is an obviousness-type double patenting.
Present application
US 12682648 B2
An information processing system comprising:
An information processing system comprising:
a memory storing instructions;
a memory storing instructions;
and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to:
and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to perform processes comprising:
detect a person in a captured image;
detecting a person in at least one of the plurality of regions in the image data;
specify a movement of the person from the captured image;
specifying a movement of the person in the image data;
determine a processing mode for the captured image based on the movement of the person and a place information where the captured image being captured;
determining, for each of the plurality of regions, a respective processing mode for the image data based on the movement of the person and location information related to the location where the image data is captured;
and execute processing for the captured image, the processing corresponding to the processing mode.
and executing processing for the image data, the processing corresponding to the respective processing mode for each of the plurality of regions.
Claim 3
Claim 12
Claim 4
Claim 13
Claim 7
Claim 11
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20150030155 A1 to Park et al. and US 2015/0235366 A1 to Lee et al.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DELOMIA L GILLIARD whose telephone number is (571)272-1681. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm.
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, John Villecco can be reached at (571) 272-7319. 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.
/DELOMIA L GILLIARD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2661
Prosecution Insights