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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/22/2025 has been entered.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 8-12, 15, 16, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higgins et al. (US 2023/0064675) in view of Magee et al. (US 2021/0124924).
Regarding claim 1, Higgins teaches a method comprising:
receiving, at a processing hub, a set of video feeds from a set of cameras communicatively associated with the processing hub, wherein the set of cameras are selected based at least on an incident (see para. 0005, 0033, Higgins discusses system tracking, logging, and displaying user actions using different camera feeds);
determining, for the tracked object, a direction of travel and a future route of the tracked object (see para. 0063, Higgins discusses system that performs tracking, logging, and predicting object direction, and object position); and
generating, for the tracked object, a user interface comprising at least one of: a map-based interface displaying one or more icons associated with the set of cameras, a tracked object icon, and an indication of the future route for the tracked object; or an object-tracking interface providing a camera view of the tracked object captured by an active video feed from the set of video feeds (see para. 0051, Higgins discusses providing camera views; see para. 0037, Higgins discusses a map displaying camera icons and allowing the user to view the camera’s image feed).
Magee teaches determining, based at least on the set of video feeds, a tracked object within a first video feed of the set of video feeds and object information associated with the tracked object, the object information comprising one or more meta attributes that identify the tracked object for reacquisition within the set of video feeds responsive to the tracked object exiting the first video feed (see para. 0054, 0077, Magee discusses using image analysis with metadata attributes disclosed in patent publication Krishnamurthy (US 2021/0124935) 16/663,710 “Topview object tracking using a sensor array” on captured video feeds to track customers in a store; see para. 0094, Magee discusses tracking customers using timestamp data; see para. 0098, Magee discusses using object metadata to track the object and replace the subset of camera feed segments currently displayed with a new subset of camera feed segments, which includes those camera feed segments that capture regions of physical store closest to the new location of person);
reacquiring, based at least on the one or more meta attributes, the tracked object within a second video feed of the set of video feeds (see para. 0098, Magee discusses replace the subset of camera feed segments currently displayed with a new subset of camera feed segments, which includes those camera feed segments that capture regions of physical store closest to the new location of person).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Higgins with Magee to derive at the invention of claim 1. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform object tracking with a user interface.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Higgins in this manner in order to improve a user interface for object tracking by selecting camera devices with a field of view that allows the image capture of a tracked object. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Higgins, while the teaching of Magee continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of selecting cameras that are capable of capturing a tracked object to properly display the object in a user interface. The Higgins and Magee systems perform object tracking, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Regarding claim 8, Higgins teaches wherein the map-based interface comprises a map of a geographic space centered on an active camera from the set of cameras (see para. 0044, Higgins discusses displaying live video feeds and map with displayed images).
The same motivation of claim 1 is applied to claim 8. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Higgins with Magee to derive at the invention of claim 8. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform object tracking with a user interface.
Regarding claim 9, Higgins teaches wherein: one or more additional cameras from the set of cameras are depicted within the geographic space via the one or more icons (see para. 0033, Higgins discusses camera icons on a geographical map); and the future route for the tracked object comprises an indication of a direction of travel (see para. 0033, 0063, Higgins discusses analyzing and predicting an object's future change in direction and position).
The same motivation of claim 1 is applied to claim 9. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Higgins with Magee to derive at the invention of claim 9. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform object tracking with a user interface.
Claim 10 is rejected as applied to claim 1 as pertaining to a corresponding system.
Regarding claim 11, Higgins teaches further comprising a camera mapping module that provides one or more registry maps for one or more geographic regions, wherein the one or more registry maps are utilized to determine the set of cameras (see para. 0044, Higgins discusses displaying live video feeds and map with displayed images; see para. 0054-0055, Higgins discusses geographic data used to generate a map).
The same motivation of claim 1 is applied to claim 11. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Higgins with Magee to derive at the invention of claim 11. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform object tracking with a user interface.
Regarding claim 12, Higgins teaches wherein the one or more data sources comprise one or more video feeds from the plurality of cameras associated with at least one of a helicopter, a drone, a robot, or a fixed camera (see para. 0021, Higgins discusses using cameras mounted on helicopters, drones, or fixed cameras).
The same motivation of claim 1 is applied to claim 12. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Higgins with Magee to derive at the invention of claim 12. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform object tracking with a user interface.
Regarding claim 15, Higgins teaches wherein the object-tracking interface is a map-based interface that provides one or more locations associated with the set of cameras via the one or more icons (see para. 0030-0033, 0044, Higgins discusses multiple cameras and a user interface with a map for displaying live video feeds).
The same motivation of claim 1 is applied to claim 15. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Higgins with Magee to derive at the invention of claim 15. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform object tracking with a user interface.
Regarding claim 16, Higgins teaches wherein the interface generator generates the map-based interface by: generating a grid of a region around an incident location (see para. 0034, 0055, 0065, Higgins discusses grid map for displaying regions defined by cameras and objects of interest);
generating underlying map imagery for the map-based interface (see para. 0031, 0034-0035, Higgins discusses grid map for displaying regions defined by cameras and geographical data); and
placing the one or more icons representing the set of cameras, each icon of the one or more icons being associated with a live video stream captured at a location corresponding to the icon on the map-based interface (see para. 0030-0033, 0044, Higgins discusses multiple camera icons displayed on a map).
The same motivation of claim 1 is applied to claim 16. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Higgins with Magee to derive at the invention of claim 16. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform object tracking with a user interface.
Regarding claim 21, Magee teaches wherein the tracked object is identified via the object information in real-time responsive to the tracked object exiting the first video feed (see para. 0098, Magee discusses live image capture to track objects exiting a video camera feed).
The same motivation of claim 1 is applied to claim 21. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Higgins with Magee to derive at the invention of claim 21. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform object tracking with a user interface.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higgins et al. (US 2023/0064675) in view of Magee et al. (US 2021/0124924) in view of Boghossian et al. (US 2013/0208124).
Regarding claim 2, Higgins and Magee do not expressly disclose wherein the set of cameras are selected from a plurality of cameras available to the processing hub based at least on whether individual cameras have a field of view to capture images of the tracked object. However, Boghossian teaches wherein the set of cameras are selected from a plurality of cameras available to the processing hub based at least on whether individual cameras have a field of view to capture images of the tracked object (see para. 0123, claim 27, Boghossian discusses user selection of a camera location corresponding to said other view field to display a video scene in which said possible object is present).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Higgins and Magee with Boghossian to derive at the invention of claim 2. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform object tracking with a user interface.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Higgins and Magee in this manner in order to improve a user interface for object tracking by selecting camera devices with a field of view that allows the image capture of a tracked object. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Higgins and Magee, while the teaching of Boghossian continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of selecting cameras that are capable of capturing a tracked object to properly display the object in a user interface. The Higgins, Magee, and Boghossian systems perform object tracking, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Claims 4, 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higgins et al. (US 2023/0064675) in view of Magee et al. (US 2021/0124924) in view of Zhou et al. (US 10,176,405).
Regarding claim 4, Higgins and Magee do not expressly disclose further comprises: determining, by the processing hub, that the tracked object has exited the camera view and determining, based at least on the one or more meta attributes, an additional video feed from the set of video feeds associated with an additional camera view that captures the tracked object.
However, Zhou teaches further comprises: determining, by the processing hub, that the tracked object has exited the camera view and determining, based at least on the one or more meta attributes, an additional video feed from the set of video feeds associated with an additional camera view that captures the tracked object (see col. 3 lines 25-36, Zhou discusses after a vehicle has been captured by a first camera and has exited the FOV of the first camera, the vehicle re-identification system enables the vehicle to be re-identified when the vehicle enters the FOV of other cameras).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Higgins and Magee with Zhou to derive at the invention of claim 4. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform object tracking with a user interface.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Higgins and Magee in this manner in order to improve a user interface for object tracking by selecting camera devices with a field of view that allows the image capture of a tracked object. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Higgins and Magee, while the teaching of Zhou continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of selecting cameras that are capable of capturing a tracked object to properly display the object in a user interface. The Higgins, Magee, and Zhou systems perform object tracking, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Regarding claim 5, Higgins and Magee do not expressly disclose wherein the object information comprises at least one of: an object type; a car color; a vehicle type; or one or more pieces of clothing. However, Zhou teaches wherein the object information comprises at least one of: an object type; a car color; a vehicle type; or one or more pieces of clothing (see col. 8 lines 31-35, Zhou discusses identifying color of vehicles, model and manufacturer of the vehicle, the vehicle type e.g., indicating the body style of the car, such as a sedan, truck, station wagon, van or other style, and/or other related information associated with the vehicle).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Higgins and Magee with Zhou to derive at the invention of claim 5. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform object tracking with a user interface.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Higgins and Magee in this manner in order to improve a user interface for object tracking by extracting metadata features of a tracked object that allow continuous tracking. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Higgins and Magee, while the teaching of Zhou continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of extracting features of a tracked object to properly track and display the object in a user interface. The Higgins, Magee, and Zhou systems perform object tracking, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Claims 6, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higgins et al. (US 2023/0064675) in view of Magee et al. (US 2021/0124924) in view of Ishikawa et al. (US 2019/0122064).
Regarding claim 6, Higgins and Magee do not expressly disclose wherein determining the tracked object comprises receiving a user input identifying the tracked object within the set of video feeds. However, Ishikawa teaches wherein determining the tracked object comprises receiving a user input identifying the tracked object within the set of video feeds (see para. 0453, 0468, 0486, Ishikawa discusses user input selecting objects in camera feeds to track).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Higgins and Magee with Ishikawa to derive at the invention of claim 6. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform object tracking with a user interface.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Higgins and Magee in this manner in order to improve a user interface for object tracking by allowing the user to select camera feeds that contain the tracked object. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Higgins and Magee, while the teaching of Ishikawa continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of implementing a user input to select cameras that are capable of capturing a tracked object to properly display the object in a user interface. The Higgins, Magee, and Ishikawa systems perform object tracking, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Regarding claim 7, Higgins and Magee do not expressly disclose wherein determining the tracked object comprises utilizing an object detection module to identify the tracked object within the set of video feeds based at least on selection information. However, Ishikawa teaches wherein determining the tracked object comprises utilizing an object detection module to identify the tracked object within the set of video feeds based at least on selection information (see para. 0453, 0468, 0486, Ishikawa discusses user input selecting tracking objects in camera feeds).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Higgins and Magee with Ishikawa to derive at the invention of claim 7. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform object tracking with a user interface.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Higgins and Magee in this manner in order to improve a user interface for object tracking by allowing the user to select camera feeds that contain the tracked object. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Higgins and Magee, while the teaching of Ishikawa continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of implementing a user input to select cameras that are capable of capturing a tracked object to properly display the object in a user interface. The Higgins, Magee, and Ishikawa systems perform object tracking, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higgins et al. (US 2023/0064675) in view of Magee et al. (US 2021/0124924) in view of Sadanand (US 2020/0145623).
Regarding claim 13, Higgins and Magee do not expressly disclose wherein the one or more data sources comprise one or more incident-specific cameras selected from the plurality of cameras within a predefined distance of an incident location. However, Sadanand teaches wherein the one or more data sources comprise one or more incident-specific cameras selected from the plurality of cameras within a predefined distance of an incident location (see para. 0020, Sadanand discusses detecting an event associated with an object of interest, initiate a secondary video stream having a field of view that comprises the selected portion).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Higgins and Magee with Sadanand to derive at the invention of claim 13. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform object tracking with a user interface.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Higgins and Magee in this manner in order to improve a user interface for object tracking by selecting camera devices within a distance from the tracked object to properly capture the object in the field of view of the camera. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Higgins and Magee, while the teaching of Sadanand continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of selecting cameras within a distance of a tracked object to properly capture and display the object in a user interface. The Higgins, Magee, and Sadanand systems perform object tracking, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Claims 17, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higgins et al. (US 2023/0064675) in view of Magee et al. (US 2021/0124924) in view of Outtagarts et al. (US 2012/0243730).
Regarding claim 17, Higgins and Magee do not expressly disclose wherein the object-tracking interface further comprises one or more timers indicating when the set of cameras are predicted to capture the tracked object. However, Outtagarts teaches wherein the object-tracking interface further comprises one or more timers indicating when the set of cameras are predicted to capture the tracked object (see para. 0050, Outtagarts discusses determining a camera expected to detect objects, based on information indicative of the location and/or motion, trajectory, speed of the tracked object and the physical positions of the neighboring cameras).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Higgins and Magee with Outtagarts to derive at the invention of claim 17. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform object tracking with a user interface.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Higgins and Magee in this manner in order to improve a user interface for object tracking that predicts a camera that will capture the tracked object based on the location and motion of the tracked object. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Higgins and Magee, while the teaching of Outtagarts continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of predicting cameras that are capable of capturing a tracked object to properly display the object in a user interface. The Higgins, Magee, and Outtagarts systems perform object tracking, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Regarding claim 18, Outtagarts teaches wherein the one or more timers are calculated based at least on a calculated speed of the tracked object and a direction of travel determined relative to a field of view or location of individual cameras (see para. 0050, Outtagarts discusses determining a camera expected to detect objects, based on information indicative of the location and/or motion, trajectory, speed of the tracked object and the physical positions of the neighboring cameras).
The same motivation of claim 17 is applied to claim 18. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Higgins and Magee with Outtagarts to derive at the invention of claim 18. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform object tracking with a user interface.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Magee et al. (US 2021/0124924) in view of Carranza et al. (US 2019/0043207).
Regarding claim 19, Magee teaches a method for tracking a tracked object, the method comprising: determining one or more meta attributes of the tracked object from an incident, the one or more meta attributes determined responsive to at least the tracked object being identified within a first video feed (see para. 0054, 0077, Magee discusses using image analysis with metadata attributes disclosed in patent publication Krishnamurthy (US 2021/0124935) 16/663,710 “Topview object tracking using a sensor array” on captured video feeds to track customers in a store; see para. 0094, Magee discusses tracking customers using timestamp data; see para. 0098, Magee discusses using object metadata to track the object and replace the subset of camera feed segments currently displayed with a new subset of camera feed segments, which includes those camera feed segments that capture regions of physical store closest to the new location of person);
determining, for the set of incident-specific cameras, whether the tracked object is captured by one or more feeds received from the incident-specific cameras (see figure 4, para. 0062, Magee discusses cameras capture a moving object along a trajectory), wherein the tracked object is reacquired after moving out of the first video feed based at least on the one or more meta attributes from the incident and is indicated within a second video feed as a potential reacquisition of the tracked object (see para. 0098, Magee discusses using object metadata to track the object and replace the subset of camera feed segments currently displayed with a new subset of camera feed segments, which includes those camera feed segments that capture regions of physical store closest to the new location of person);
generating, for the tracked object, an object-tracking interface comprising a grid of a region associated with the incident location and one or more icons associated with the one or more feeds (see para. 0294, Magee discusses a grid map displaying camera icons, analyzing object locations).
Carranza teaches determining one or more meta attributes of the tracked object from an incident (see para. 0061, 0076, Carranza discusses determining metadata when an object is in front of a camera, and using object metadata to track the object and predict future position);
determining, for the tracked object, a set of incident-specific cameras from a plurality of available cameras, the set of incident-specific cameras being within a predetermined distance from an incident location associated with the incident (see para. 0051-0052, Carranza discusses multiple cameras positioned at known locations to detect objects);
indicating, for the tracked object, the tracked object within the object-tracking interface associated with a route of the tracked object (see para. 0022, Carranza discusses displaying object trajectories).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Magee with Carranza to derive at the invention of claim 19. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform object tracking with a user interface.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Magee in this manner in order to improve a user interface for object tracking using icons representative of objects and trajectory data that demonstrates the movements of the objects. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Magee, while the teaching of Carranza continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of selecting cameras that are capable of capturing a tracked object to properly display the object in a user interface. The Magee and Carranza systems perform object tracking, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Magee et al. (US 2021/0124924) in view of Carranza et al. (US 2019/0043207) in view of Akisada (US 2008/0304706).
Regarding claim 20, Magee and Carranza do not expressly disclose further comprising: receiving a user input selecting an icon of the one or more icons; and providing an active camera view window that displays a live video feed received from a camera, of the set of incident-specific cameras, associated with the icon.
However, Akisada teaches further comprising: receiving a user input selecting an icon of the one or more icons (see para. 0501, Akisada discusses user selections of cameras or object icons); and providing an active camera view window that displays a live video feed received from a camera, of the set of incident-specific cameras, associated with the icon (see para. 0209-0210, 0483, Akisada discusses displaying live camera feeds of moving objects).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Magee and Carranza with Akisada to derive at the invention of claim 20. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform object tracking with a user interface.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Magee and Carranza in this manner in order to improve a user interface for object tracking using icons representative of objects and trajectory data that demonstrates the movements of the objects. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Magee and Carranza, while the teaching of Akisada continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of selecting cameras that are capable of capturing a tracked object to properly display the object in a user interface. The Magee, Carranza, and Akisada systems perform object tracking, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higgins et al. (US 2023/0064675) in view of Magee et al. (US 2021/0124924) in view of Wakita et al. (US 2021/0295550).
Regarding claim 22, Higgins and Magee do not expressly disclose wherein reacquiring the tracked object within the second video feed of the set of video feeds further comprises: determining that the second video feed comprises a potential reacquisition; notifying a user that the second video feed comprises the potential reacquisition; and switching the active video feed to the second video feed.
However, Wakita teaches wherein reacquiring the tracked object within the second video feed of the set of video feeds further comprises: determining that the second video feed comprises a potential reacquisition; notifying a user that the second video feed comprises the potential reacquisition; and switching the active video feed to the second video feed (see para. 0124, 0154, 0168, Wakita discusses specifies the imaging device 200 which is likely to capture the image of the target; see para. 0223, 0262, Wakita discusses user interface that specifies the imaging device capturing a target).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Higgins and Magee with Wakita to derive at the invention of claim 22. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform object tracking with a user interface.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Higgins and Magee in this manner in order to improve a user interface for object tracking by selecting camera devices with a field of view that allows the image capture of a tracked object. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Higgins and Magee, while the teaching of Wakita continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of selecting cameras that are capable of capturing a tracked object to properly display the object in a user interface. The Higgins, Magee, and Wakita systems perform object tracking, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Krishnamurthy (US 2021/0124935) 16/663,710 discusses tracking persons using metadata of the persons.
Liu et al. (US 2019/0238798) discusses determining likely camera to capture object.
Hazzani (US 9979901) discusses at a second time subsequent to a first time, a second video camera from the plurality may be selected based on the location indications. The output is switched to the second video images of the object, which are captured by the selected second video camera.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNY A CESE whose telephone number is (571) 270-1896. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, 9am – 4pm.
If attempts to reach the primary examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gregory Morse can be reached on (571) 272-3838. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Kenny A Cese/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2663