DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action for U.S. Patent Application 19/207,416 is responsive to communications filed on 6/11/26, in reply to the Non-Final Rejection of 2/11/26. Currently, claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/11/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues on pages 5-7 of the Response that Haight, Cappel-Porter, and Lee do not teach “a processing unit configured to detect an object of interest (OOI) from the first image information and, when the OOI is further than a distance that allows identification of the OOI in the first image information, to direct FOV2 to scan within FOV1 to acquire second image information on the OOI”.
However, Haight teaches image and video analysis that includes object recognition and objection tracking (e.g., “a processing unit configured to detect and object of interest from the first image information”) (Fig. 1; col. 6, lines 14-40). In addition, Cappel-Porter teaches that the system 10 images multiple targets 21 (e.g., “OOI”) within a single NFOV camera 13 by rapidly scanning the imaging axis of the NFOV camera 13 to point at different areas within the scene imaged by the WFOV camera 11 (e.g., “to direct FOV2 to scan within FOV1 to acquire second image information on the OOI”) (Fig. 1; para[0038]). Lee teaches that when the operation of a wide-angle camera module is changed to the operation of a telephoto camera module (e.g., to zoom in on a subject), the processor 520 may extract a subject (i.e., “OOI”) distance through the focus location in the wide-angle camera module and may move the focus lens to the corresponding location after substituting the extracted subject distance into the telephoto camera module to extract the location information of a focus (e.g., “when the OOI is further than a distance that allows identification of the OOI in the first image information”) (para[0097]).
Applicant also argues on page 6 of the Response that the rationale for combining Lee with Haight and Cappel-Porter is insufficient as it does not provide a reason to modify Haight and Cappel-Porter to perform the claimed conditional scanning operation based on whether the OOI is beyond an identification distance of the first image information.
In response to applicant's argument that the rationale for combining Lee with Haight and Cappel-Porter is insufficient, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
It would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Lee with those of Haight and Cappel-Porter because Lee teaches providing a focus control method that allows focus information (e.g., focal length or focus location) to be shared between a plurality of optical systems with regard to manual focus adjustment. In addition, Lee teaches how to easily adjust the focus location by standardizing an adjustment scheme associated with a focus location with respect to a plurality of optical systems (See, for example, para[0008] of Lee). These particular features of Lee teach how it would be compatible with the systems of Haight and Cappel-Porter and are not relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 1 specifically.
Therefore, Haight, Cappel-Porter, and Lee teach all of the limitations of claim 1. In addition, please see the below-stated rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 20, Applicant argues on pages 7-8 of the Response that Haight and Cappel-Porter do not teach “a processing unit configured to record the first video stream and the second video stream during an automatic tracking mode and to fuse together the recorded first video stream and the recorded second video stream to form a composite image or a composite video stream”.
However, Haight teaches that the camera 112 may capture images to enable the processor 104 to perform various image processing techniques, such as compression, image and video analysis, telemetry, or others. For example, image and video analysis can comprise object recognition, object tracking (e.g., “automatic tracking”), any known computer vision or machine vision analytics, or other analysis (Fig. 1; col. 6, lines 14-40). In addition, Cappel-Porter teaches a process further comprises separately combining successive images of the at least one target (i.e., “to fuse together the recorded first video stream and the recorded second video stream to form a composite image or a composite video stream”) to generate a video image (e.g., “composite image or a composite video stream”) of the at least one target (para[0024]).
Therefore, Haight and Cappel-Porter teach all of the limitations of claim 20 as discussed above. In addition, please see the below-stated rejection of claim 20.
Regarding claims 2-19, please see the above-stated discussion for claim 1 and the below-stated rejection of the claims.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “a processing unit” in claims 1 and 20.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1, 4-12 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haight (U.S. Patent No. 10,406,972) in view of Cappel-Porter et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0296142; cited in the IDS filed 5/31/25) and in view of Lee et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0295292).
In regard to claim 1, Haight teaches a system, comprising:
one or more cameras (i.e., camera 112, wide forward camera 112c) (Figs. 3a and 3b; col. 6, lines 28-40; col. 8, lines 1-22), wherein the one or more cameras are configured to provide a first video stream of first images (i.e. wide forward camera 112c) (Figs. 3a and 3b; col. 8, lines 1-22) and a second video stream of second images (i.e. narrow forward camera 112a) (Figs. 3a and 3b; col. 8, lines 1-22 and 23-35), wherein the first images have first image information and a first field of view (FOV1) information (i.e. the camera 112 is in communication with the processor 104; the wide forward camera 112c provides a field of view wider than the main forward camera 112b; the wide forward camera 112c can include a 120 degree fisheye lens) (Fig. 1; col. 6, lines 14-20; Figs. 3a and 3b; col. 8, lines 28-35) and the second images have second image information and a second field of view (FOV2) smaller than FOV1 (i.e. narrow forward camera 112a; the main forward camera 112b provides a field of view wider than the narrow forward camera 112a, but narrower than the wide forward camera 112c) (Figs. 3a and 3b; col. 8, lines 1-22 and 23-35), and…; and
a processing unit configured to detect an object of interest (OOI) from the first image information (i.e. the camera 112 may capture images to enable the processor 104 to perform various image processing techniques, such as compression, image and video analysis, telemetry, or others. For example, image and video analysis can comprise object recognition, object tracking, any known computer vision or machine vision analytics, or other analysis) (Fig. 1; col. 6, lines 14-40) and…
However, Haight does not explicitly teach wherein FOV2 is configured to scan within FOV1 nor does it explicitly teach when the OOI is further than a distance that allows identification of the OOI in the first image information, to direct FOV2 to scan within FOV1 to acquire second image information on the OOI.
In the same field of endeavor, Cappel-Porter teaches wherein FOV2 is configured to scan within FOV1 (i.e., the system 10 images multiple targets 21 within a single NFOV camera 13 by rapidly scanning the imaging axis of the NFOV camera 13 to point at different areas within the scene imaged by the WFOV camera 11) (Fig. 1; para[0038]) and teaches …to direct FOV2 to scan within FOV1 to acquire second image information on the OOI (i.e., the system 10 images multiple targets 21 within a single NFOV camera 13 by rapidly scanning the imaging axis of the NFOV camera 13 to point at different areas within the scene imaged by the WFOV camera 11) (Fig. 1; para[0038]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of Haight and Cappel-Porter because Cappel-Porter teaches an imaging system for enhanced tracking comprising target image recognition means for identifying a target image captured by at least one of the WFOV imaging device and the NFOV imaging device (See, for example, para[0016] of Cappel-Porter). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Haight with those of Cappel-Porter.
However, Cappel-Porter does not explicitly teach when the OOI is further than a distance that allows identification of the OOI in the first image information.
In the same field of endeavor, Lee teaches when the OOI is further than a distance that allows identification of the OOI in the first image information (i.e., the processor 520 may adjust a focus location such that the focus location is also varies to be suitable for the changed focal length; for example, in the case where the operation of a wide-angle camera module is changed to the operation of a telephoto camera module, the processor 520 may extract a subject (i.e., “OOI”) distance through the focus location in the wide-angle camera module and may move the focus lens to the corresponding location after substituting the extracted subject distance into the telephoto camera module to extract the location information of a focus; the processor 520 may update a focus location display associated with the operation of the telephoto camera module concurrently with the movement of a focus lens) (para[0097]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of Haight and Cappel-Porter with those of Lee because Lee teaches providing a focus control method that allows focus information (e.g., focal length or focus location) to be shared between a plurality of optical systems with regard to manual focus adjustment, and easily adjust the focus location by standardizing an adjustment scheme associated with a focus location with respect to a plurality of optical systems (See, for example, para[0008] of Lee). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Haight and Cappel-Porter with those of Lee.
In regard to claim 4, Haight, Cappel-Porter, and Lee teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. However, Haight does not explicitly teach wherein the first images have a first spatial resolution, and wherein the second images have a second spatial resolution higher than the first resolution.
In the same field of endeavor, Cappel-Porter teaches wherein the first images have a first spatial resolution, and wherein the second images have a second spatial resolution higher than the first resolution (i.e., it is preferred that the NFOV camera 13 comprises a greater resolution than the WFOV camera 11 to provide a high definition image of the target 21) (para[0031]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of Haight and Cappel-Porter for the same reasons as those discussed above for claim 1.
In regard to claim 5, Haight, Cappel-Porter, and Lee teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. In addition, Haight teaches wherein the processing unit is configured to direct FOV2 to scan to substantially a center of the FOV1 (i.e. the narrow forward camera 112a and the wide forward camera 112c (112a is “substantially a center” of 112c)) (Figs. 2 and 3a).
In regard to claim 6, Haight, Cappel-Porter, and Lee teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. However, Haight does not explicitly teach wherein the processing unit is configured to direct FOV2 to scan to substantially a center of the OOI.
In the same field of endeavor, Cappel-Porter teaches wherein the processing unit is configured to direct FOV2 to scan to substantially a center of the OOI (i.e., the image viewed by the NFOV camera 13 is determined by a steering arrangement 15 which is communicatively coupled with the controller 12 and which is arranged to align the imaging axis of the NFOV camera 13 with the desired target 21 (e.g., “substantially a center of the OOI”) in accordance with signals from the controller 12) (Fig. 1; para[0034]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of Haight and Cappel-Porter for the same reasons as those discussed above for claim 1.
In regard to claim 7, Haight, Cappel-Porter, and Lee teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. However, Haight does not explicitly teach wherein the processing unit is configured to direct FOV2 to scan to a specific location of the OOI.
In the same field of endeavor, Cappel-Porter teaches wherein the processing unit is configured to direct FOV2 to scan to a specific location of the OOI (i.e., the image viewed by the NFOV camera 13 is determined by a steering arrangement 15 which is communicatively coupled with the controller 12 and which is arranged to align the imaging axis of the NFOV camera 13 with the desired target 21 (e.g., “substantially a center of the OOI”) in accordance with signals from the controller 12) (Fig. 1; para[0034]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of Haight and Cappel-Porter for the same reasons as those discussed above for claim 1.
In regard to claim 8, Haight, Cappel-Porter, and Lee teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. However, Haight does not explicitly teach wherein the OOI is a face and the second image information is used for facial recognition.
In the same field of endeavor, Cappel-Porter teaches wherein the OOI is a face and the second image information is used for facial recognition (i.e., the imaging system may further comprise target image recognition means for identifying a target image captured by at least one of the WFOV imaging device and the NFOV imaging device; the image recognition means may comprise a face recognition algorithm for tracking a person for example) (para[0016]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of Haight and Cappel-Porter for the same reasons as those discussed above for claim 1.
In regard to claim 9, Haight, Cappel-Porter, and Lee teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. However, Haight does not explicitly teach wherein the processing unit is configured to direct FOV2 to scan parts of FOV1 in two directions.
In the same field of endeavor, Cappel-Porter teaches wherein the processing unit is configured to direct FOV2 to scan parts of FOV1 in two directions (i.e., the control subsequently steers the imaging axis of the NFOV camera 13 at step 140 by rotating the mirrors 15a, 15b using the actuators 16, so that the imaging axis become directed at each of the targets 21 in accordance with an imaging sequence) (Fig. 1; para[0036]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of Haight and Cappel-Porter for the same reasons as those discussed above for claim 1.
In regard to claim 10, Haight, Cappel-Porter, and Lee teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. However, Haight does not explicitly teach wherein the processing unit is configured to direct FOV2 to scan within FOV1 to acquire second image information on the OOI in an automatic tracking mode.
In the same field of endeavor, Cappel-Porter teaches wherein the processing unit is configured to direct FOV2 to scan within FOV1 to acquire second image information on the OOI in an automatic tracking mode (i.e., the system 10 and particularly the controller further comprises tracking algorithms which, upon designating a target image within a WFOV image, the controller 12 may shift the imaging axis relative to the imaged scene at step 170, as the particular target moves around the imaged scene; the controller 12 may be arranged to track a number of targets 21 using the NFOV camera 13; a single NFOV camera 13 may track a number of independently moving targets 21 within the same WFOV scene) (Fig. 1; para[0039]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of Haight and Cappel-Porter for the same reasons as those discussed above for claim 1.
In regard to claim 11, Haight, Cappel-Porter, and Lee teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. However, while Haight and Cappel-Porter teach systems on a vehicle, they do not explicitly teach wherein the system is included in a mobile electronic device.
In the same field of endeavor, Lee teaches wherein the system is included in a mobile electronic device (i.e., an electronic device according to various embodiments of the present disclosure may include at least one of smartphones, tablet personal computers (PCs), mobile phones, etc.) (Fig. 1; para[0043]).
In regard to claim 12, Haight, Cappel-Porter, and Lee teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. In addition, Haight teaches wherein the processing unit is installed in a vehicle (Figs. 3a and 3b) and wherein the processing unit is configured to calculate a required measure-of-action or response needed from the vehicle (i.e. these instructions instruct the processor 104 to interface with one or more ultrasonic sensors 108, the radar 110, the transceiver 114, the steering angle sensor 116, the turn signal source 118, the narrow forward camera 112a, the main forward camera 112b, the wide forward camera 112c, the forward looking side camera 112d, the rearward looking side camera 112e, the rear view camera 112f, and the side repeater camera 112g in order to facilitate performance of a method for automated turn signal activation, as disclosed herein; note that this configuration provides a 360 degree monitoring zone around the vehicle 100) (Figs. 1, 3a, 3b; col. 7, lines 48-57).
In regard to claim 16, Haight, Cappel-Porter, and Lee teach all of the limitations of claims 1 and 12 as discussed above. In addition, Haight teaches wherein the processing unit is configured to receive steering information from a steering wheel of the vehicle (i.e. the steering angle sensor 116 is in communications with the processor 104; the steering angle sensor 116 may sense a steering wheel position angle (between a front of the vehicle 100 and a steered wheel 102 direction) (col. 6, lines 60-67)…
However, Haight does not explicitly teach to direct FOV2 to scan based also on the steering information.
In the same field of endeavor, Cappel-Porter teaches to direct FOV2 to scan based also on the steering information (i.e., the image viewed by the NFOV camera 13 is determined by a steering arrangement 15 which is communicatively coupled with the controller 12 and which is arranged to align the imaging axis of the NFOV camera 13 with the desired target 21 in accordance with signals from the controller 12) (para[0034]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of Haight and Cappel-Porter for the same reasons as those discussed above for claim 1.
In regard to claim 17, Haight, Cappel-Porter, and Lee teach all of the limitations of claims 1 and 12 as discussed above. In addition, Haight teaches wherein FOV1 covers a road in front of the vehicle (i.e. Figs. 10 and 11 show a vehicle 100 on a road 400 with other vehicles 300) (col. 10, lines 34-41), wherein the OOI is a road curve, and wherein the processing unit is configured to direct FOV2 to follow the road curve (i.e. for example, vehicle 100 can be a Tesla Corporation Model S (or any other Tesla mode) equipped with Tesla Autopilot (enhanced Autopilot); it is noted that an autopilot program would necessarily track and determine vehicle paths, such as along a road curve, using various sensors/cameras/etc.) (col. 4, lines 24-49).
In regard to claim 18, Haight, Cappel-Porter, and Lee teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. However, Haight does not explicitly teach wherein the first and second image information may be fused together to form a composite image or a composite video stream.
In the same field of endeavor, Cappel-Porter teaches wherein the first and second image information may be fused together to form a composite image or a composite video stream (i.e., the process further comprises separately combining successive images of the at least one target to generate a video image of the at least one target) (para[0024]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of Haight and Cappel-Porter for the same reasons as those discussed above for claim 1.
In regard to claim 19, Haight, Cappel-Porter, and Lee teach all of the limitations of claims 1 and 18 as discussed above. However, Haight does not explicitly teach wherein each composite image has the same field of view.
In the same field of endeavor, Cappel-Porter teaches wherein each composite image has the same field of view (i.e., the process further comprises separately combining successive images of the at least one target to generate a video image of the at least one target (e.g., “same field of view” is the at least one target) (para[0024]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of Haight and Cappel-Porter for the same reasons as those discussed above for claim 1.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haight (U.S. Patent No. 10,406,972) in view of Cappel-Porter et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0296142; cited in the IDS filed 5/31/25) and in view of Lee et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0295292), further in view of Georgiev et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0295112).
In regard to claim 2, Haight, Cappel-Porter, and Lee teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. However, Haight, Cappel-Porter, and Lee do not explicitly teach wherein FOV1 has a range of 50-100 degrees.
In the same field of endeavor, Georgiev teaches wherein FOV1 has a range of 50-100 degrees (i.e., wide field of view image, e.g., at fields of view of about 60 degrees or greater).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of Haight, Cappel-Porter, and Lee with those of Georgiev because Georgiev teaches a multi-camera array which enables low-profile imaging systems while maintaining or improving image quality (See, for example, para[0002], [0006]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Haight, Cappel-Porter, and Lee with those of Georgiev.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haight (U.S. Patent No. 10,406,972) in view of Cappel-Porter et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0296142; cited in the IDS filed 5/31/25) and in view of Lee et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0295292), further in view of Mercado (U.S. 2015/0253543).
In regard to claim 3, Haight, Cappel-Porter, and Lee teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. However, Haight, Cappel-Porter, and Lee do not explicitly teach wherein FOV2 has a range of 10-30 degrees.
In the same field of endeavor, Mercado teaches wherein FOV2 has a range of 10-30 degrees (i.e., telephoto lens system; the field of view (FOV) is at or about 26 degrees) (para[0009]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of Haight, Cappel-Porter, and Lee with those of Mercado because Mercado teaches achieving a higher resolution with small package size cameras requiring use of a photosensor with small pixel size and a good, compact imaging lens system (See, for example, para[0005] of Mercado). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Haight, Cappel-Porter, and Lee with those of Mercado.
Claims 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haight (U.S. Patent No. 10,406,972) in view of Cappel-Porter et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0296142; cited in the IDS filed 5/31/25) and in view of Lee et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0295292), further in view of Kisacanin (U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0159344).
In regard to claim 13, Haight, Cappel-Porter, and Lee teach all of the limitations of claims 1 and 12 as discussed above. However, Haight, Cappel-Porter, and Lee do not explicitly teach wherein the OOI is a face of a driver of the vehicle and wherein the required measure-of-action or response is based on a gaze of the driver.
In the same field of endeavor, Kisacanin teaches wherein the OOI is a face of a driver of the vehicle (i.e. a camera 26 is focused on an operator 30 (“OOI is a driver”)) (para[0018]) and wherein the required measure-of-action or response is based on a gaze of the driver (i.e. the camera captures the eyes 36, 38 and the nose 40 which the system uses to determine if the operator’s state is distracted or drowsy (“gaze of the driver”), this state is then used for counter measure systems 44 for automated action by the vehicle (“measure-of-action or response”)) (para[0020], [0023]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of Haight, Cappel-Porter, and Lee with those of Kisacanin because Kisacanin teaches the advantages of using counter measures to alert the driver of a drowsy condition or to initiate other counter measures in order to prevent collisions or other accidents (See, for example, para[0002],[0037]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Haight, Cappel-Porter, and Lee with those of Kisacanin.
In regard to claim 15, Haight, Cappel-Porter, and Lee teach all of the limitations of claims 1 and 12 as discussed above. However, Haight, Cappel-Porter, and Lee do not explicitly teach wherein the required measure-of-action or response is selected from the group consisting of changing speed and/or course of the vehicle, operating an internal alarm to a driver of the vehicle, operating an external alarm, sending data information to, or calling Internet/cloud based service/ police/ road assistance services, and a combination thereof.
In the same field of endeavor, Kisacanin teaches wherein the required measure-of-action or response is selected from the group consisting of changing speed and/or course of the vehicle, operating an internal alarm to a driver of the vehicle (i.e. counter measures system 44 may include a visual warning system 80 that preferably has one or more LED lights and/or an auditory warning system 82 that preferably has an audio message or alarm) (para[0037]), operating an external alarm, sending data information to, or calling Internet/cloud based service/ police/ road assistance services, and a combination thereof.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of Haight, Cappel-Porter, and Lee with those of Kisacanin for the same reasons as those stated above for claim 13.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haight (U.S. Patent No. 10,406,972) in view of Cappel-Porter et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0296142; cited in the IDS filed 5/31/25) and in view of Lee et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0295292), further in view of Orlewski (U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0234542).
In regard to claim 14, Haight, Cappel-Porter, and Lee teach all of the limitations of claims 1 and 12 as discussed above. However, Haight, Cappel-Porter, and Lee do not explicitly teach wherein the OOI is a face of a child and wherein the required measure-of-action or response is a warning that the child is not wearing a seatbelt.
In the same field of endeavor, Orlewski teaches wherein the OOI is a face of a child (i.e. an imaging system is directed towards a child seat containing a child (“OOI is a child”) (para[0043]) and wherein the required measure-of-action or response is a warning that the child is not wearing a seatbelt (i.e. if the child’s seat belt is unbuckled (“child does not wear a seat belt”), an alarm signal is generated (“measure-of-action or response”) by a warning device) (para[0047]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of Haight, Cappel-Porter, and Lee with those of Orlewski because Orlewski teaches the advantage of warning the driver or vehicle occupants if a child is not properly secured in their seat in the vehicle in order to prevent harm to the child (See, for example, para[0043], [0047]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Haight, Cappel-Porter, and Lee with those of Orlewski.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haight (U.S. Patent No. 10,406,972) in view of Cappel-Porter et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0296142; cited in the IDS filed 5/31/25).
In regard to claim 20, Haight teaches a system, comprising:
one or more cameras (i.e., camera 112, wide forward camera 112c) (Figs. 3a and 3b; col. 6, lines 28-40; col. 8, lines 1-22) configured to provide a first video stream of first images (i.e. wide forward camera 112c) (Figs. 3a and 3b; col. 8, lines 1-22) and a second video stream of second images (i.e. narrow forward camera 112a) (Figs. 3a and 3b; col. 8, lines 1-22 and 23-35); and
a processing unit configured to record the first video stream and the second video stream during an automatic tracking mode (i.e. the camera 112 may capture images to enable the processor 104 to perform various image processing techniques, such as compression, image and video analysis, telemetry, or others. For example, image and video analysis can comprise object recognition, object tracking, any known computer vision or machine vision analytics, or other analysis) (Fig. 1; col. 6, lines 14-40)…
However, Haight does not explicitly teach to fuse together the recorded first video stream and the recorded second video stream to form a composite image or a composite video stream.
In the same field of endeavor, Cappel-Porter teaches to fuse together the recorded first video stream and the recorded second video stream to form a composite image or a composite video stream (i.e., the process further comprises separately combining successive images of the at least one target to generate a video image of the at least one target) (para[0024]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of Haight and Cappel-Porter because Cappel-Porter teaches an imaging system for enhanced tracking comprising target image recognition means for identifying a target image captured by at least one of the WFOV imaging device and the NFOV imaging device (See, for example, para[0016] of Cappel-Porter). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Haight with those of Cappel-Porter.
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 Kristin Dobbs whose telephone number is (571)270-7936. The examiner can normally be reached Monday and Thursday 9:30am-5:30pm EST.
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, Sathyanarayanan 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.
KRISTIN DOBBS
Examiner
Art Unit 2488
/KRISTIN DOBBS/Examiner, Art Unit 2488
/SATH V PERUNGAVOOR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2488
Prosecution Insights