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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
SAWADA discloses
a deciding unit that, when the object is not detected ([0068] server 200 acquires positional information about a plurality of vehicles through communication network 300. From among vehicles located within the defined search area, at least one vehicle is selected to be used for the search for the protection target (the target has not been detected by selected vehicle(s))), based on the location information of each of the plurality of imaging devices, decides on the imaging device to be used in performing a search for the object from among a candidate group of the imaging devices located within a predetermined search range ([0063] a vehicle which is to monitor the protection target is selected appropriately as the protection target moves, based on … the positional information about vehicles located around the protection target; [0068] server 200 acquires positional information about a plurality of vehicles through communication network 300. From among vehicles located within the defined search area, at least one vehicle is selected to be used for the search for the protection target).
The positional information about vehicles located around the protection target and the defined search area correspond to a predetermined search range.
According to the instant application publication figure 5 and [0063], in step S10, the identifying unit 32 identifies the object that is to be searched using the imaging device 12. Figures 7-10, 14, 17, 18 have similar disclosure.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 5, 8-9, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by SAWADA et al. (US 20190147252 A1).
Regarding claim 1. SAWADA discloses An information processing device ([0046] Server 200 receiving the request acquires information from cameras and/or a variety of sensors mounted on vehicles 100 or a stationary camera 600 installed on a street or shop, and identifies the protection target, using the acquired information) comprising:
a location information obtaining unit that, from each of a plurality of imaging devices which searches for an object, obtains location information indicating current location of the imaging device ([0046] Server 200 receiving the request acquires information from cameras and/or a variety of sensors mounted on vehicles 100 or a stationary camera 600 installed on a street or shop, and identifies the protection target, using the acquired information; [0048] rescue group 400 may be a vehicle or a shop located around the location where the protection target is detected; [0063] a vehicle which is to monitor the protection target is selected appropriately as the protection target moves, based on the positional information about the protection target and the positional information about vehicles located around the protection target); and
a deciding unit that, when the object is not detected ([0068] server 200 acquires positional information about a plurality of vehicles through communication network 300. From among vehicles located within the defined search area, at least one vehicle is selected to be used for the search for the protection target (the target has not been detected by selected vehicle(s))), based on the location information of each of the plurality of imaging devices, decides on the imaging device to be used in performing a search for the object ([0063] a vehicle which is to monitor the protection target is selected appropriately as the protection target moves, based on … the positional information about vehicles located around the protection target) from among a candidate group of the imaging devices located within a predetermined search range ([0063] a vehicle which is to monitor the protection target is selected appropriately as the protection target moves, based on … the positional information about vehicles located around the protection target; [0068] server 200 acquires positional information about a plurality of vehicles through communication network 300. From among vehicles located within the defined search area, at least one vehicle is selected to be used for the search for the protection target (Examiner’s note: The positional information about vehicles located around the protection target and the defined search area correspond to a predetermined search range)).
Regarding claim 2. SAWADA discloses The information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the deciding unit decides on imaging devices, which are to be used in searching the object, in such a way that the imaging devices are located in a dispersed manner within a predetermined range ([0063] a vehicle which is to monitor the protection target is selected appropriately as the protection target moves, based on the positional information about the protection target and the positional information about vehicles located around the protection target; [0068] server 200 acquires positional information about a plurality of vehicles through communication network 300. From among vehicles located within the defined search area, at least one vehicle is selected to be used for the search for the protection target).
Regarding claim 5. SAWADA discloses The information processing device according to claim 1, wherein, from among imaging devices to be used in searching for the object, when at least a single imaging device detects the object, the deciding unit modifies a search range from which a candidate group of the imaging devices to be used in searching for the object is to be extracted ([0067] Acquiring information about the protection target, server 200 proceeds to S110 to define a search area to be searched for the protection target. The search area is preferably defined based on the usual range of activities of the protection target), and
based on modified search range, again decides on an imaging device to be used in searching for the object ([0068] From among vehicles located within the defined search area, at least one vehicle is selected to be used for the search for the protection target; [0073] When it is recognized that the protection target has moved/is moving, the vehicle to be used for watching is changed appropriately based on the positional information about the protection target and the vehicle; [0090] When the protection target moves and accordingly the originally selected vehicle can no more keep monitoring the protection target, the vehicle performing the monitoring is changed appropriately).
Regarding claim 8. SAWADA discloses The information processing device according to claim 1, wherein, based on travelling directions of the plurality of imaging devices, the deciding unit decides on the imaging device to be used in searching for the object ([0068] if the selected vehicle moves to go out of the search area or a new vehicle enters the search area, the vehicle to be used for search may be changed as appropriate; [0062]-[0063] As for the running vehicle, the vehicle itself is moving, and therefore, the protection target who is stationary in position may also go out of the field of view of the camera. In view of the above, the present embodiment employs the following scheme. Specifically, when the protection target is identified, a vehicle which is to monitor the protection target is selected appropriately as the protection target moves, based on the positional information about the protection target and the positional information about vehicles located around the protection target. Even when the found protection target moves out of the field of view of the camera of a certain vehicle, the system configured in this way can appropriately designate another vehicle to take over monitoring of the protection target; [0073] server 200 keeps searching for and watching the protection target. At this time, in S115, server 200 acquires again the positional information about the protection target as well as the positional information about each vehicle 100 (acquires vehicle position over the time, i.e., obtains travelling direction)).
Regarding claim 9. SAWADA discloses The information processing device according to claim 1, wherein, the location information obtaining unit that, from each of a plurality of imaging devices which is used in a mobile object, obtains location information of the imaging device ([0048] rescue group 400 may be a vehicle or a shop located around the location where the protection target is detected; [0063] a vehicle which is to monitor the protection target is selected appropriately as the protection target moves, based on the positional information about the protection target and the positional information about vehicles located around the protection target).
Regarding claim 13. The same analysis has been stated in claim 1.
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SAWADA et al. (US 20190147252 A1) in view of El-Hadidy et al. (Optimal Multi Zones Search Technique to Detect a Lost Target by Using k Sensors).
Regarding claim 3. El-Hadidy discloses a discrete search technique on multi zones to detect a lost target by using k sensors. The search region is divided into k zones. These zones contain an equal number of states (cells). Each zone has a one sensor to detect the target (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of SAWADA according to the invention of El-Hadidy, to divides a search range, which represents a range from which a candidate group of the imaging devices to be used in searching for the object is to be extracted, equally into an arbitrary number of regions, and decide the imaging devices to be used in searching for the object in such a way that number of the imaging device to be used in searching for the object is equal in each of the arbitrary number of regions, in order to more efficiently search for the object.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SAWADA et al. (US 20190147252 A1) in view of El-Hadidy et al. (Optimal Multi Zones Search Technique to Detect a Lost Target by Using k Sensors) and Uenoyama (US 20150242505 A1).
Regarding claim 4. El-Hadidy discloses a discrete search technique on multi zones to detect a lost target by using k sensors. The search region is divided into k zones. These zones contain an equal number of states (cells). Each zone has a one sensor to detect the target (abstract).
Uenoyama discloses a device searching method for finding a device that satisfies a request condition from among a plurality of devices (abstract). An area block including a large number of device IDs is subdivided into sub-blocks. For example, in a place where setting density of sensors or actuators is high such as the periphery of a station or a downtown, an area block is subdivided. In a suburb or the like, an area block is increased in size. Consequently, it is possible to improve efficiency of the rough search. The same effect can be obtained by varying the size of blocks such that the number of device IDs to be registered is substantially equal rather than equalizing the size of the blocks (figure 6, [0056]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of SAWADA according to the invention of El-Hadidy, to divide a search range, which represents a range from which a candidate group of the imaging devices to be used in searching for the object is to be extracted, equally into an arbitrary number of regions, and decide the imaging devices to be used in searching for the object in such a way that number of the imaging devices to be used in searching for the object is equal in each of the arbitrary number of regions; and to modify the inventions of SAWADA and El-Hadidy according to the invention of Uenoyama, to ensure that regions obtained by dividing the search range are large when number of the imaging device per unit area is small and ensure that regions obtained by dividing the search range are small when number of the imaging device per unit area is large, in order to more efficiently search for the object.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SAWADA et al. (US 20190147252 A1) in view of Ukita (US 20090268033 A1).
Regarding claim 6. SAWADA discloses The information processing device according to claim 1, wherein, the deciding unit sets the object to be searched by the imaging devices in such a way that the imaging devices to be used in searching for the object are located in a dispersed manner ([0009] The server is configured to identify the protection target, using information from the plurality of movable bodies (the object is present in information from the plurality of movable bodies); [0079] tracking of the identified protection target by this vehicle or other vehicles around the former vehicle; [0068] server 200 acquires positional information about a plurality of vehicles through communication network 300. From among vehicles located within the defined search area, at least one vehicle is selected to be used for the search for the protection target).
Ukita discloses wide-area distributed cameras to be used for monitoring and tracking many objects in a wide area ([0001]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of SAWADA according to the invention of Ukita, to search for a plurality of objects using distributed cameras, when a plurality of objects including the object are present as the search targets, in order to more efficiently search the target objects.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SAWADA et al. (US 20190147252 A1) in view of Binotto et al. (US 20190373051 A1).
Regarding claim 7. (currently amended) Binotto discloses that network devices are heterogeneous in processing capabilities. In other words, different network devices may have different capabilities or combinations of capabilities ([0027]). A computer system identifies a group of the network devices in the computer system assigned to the user for processing the task based on capabilities of the group of the network devices. The task is performed by the selected network device in the computer system such that the tasks are processed by sharing workloads among the network devices (abstract). Tasks may be assigned to network devices based on the capabilities of those network devices ([0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of SAWADA according to the invention of Binotto, to assign multiple search tasks to vehicles/cameras based on the capabilities (density) of those vehicles/cameras, to decide on a number of the objects, from among the plurality of objects as the search targets, to be searched by the imaging devices based on density of the plurality of imaging devices, in order to increase efficiency in which tasks are performed (Binotto [0028]), i.e., to increase efficiency in which objects are searched.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 XIAOLAN XU whose telephone number is (571)270-7580. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. to Fri. 9am-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, SATH V. PERUNGAVOOR can be reached at (571) 272-7455. 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.
/XIAOLAN XU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2488
Prosecution Insights