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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 10, 12 and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,401,769. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claim is broader in every aspect than the patent claim and is therefore an obvious variant thereof.
Claim 1 is met by patented claims 1, 7 and 10.
Claim 2 is met by patented claim 2.
Claim 3 is met by patented claim 1.
Claim 4 is met by patented claim 5.
Claim 5 is met by patented claim 12.
Claim 6 is met by patented claim 13.
Claims 7 and 8 are obvious variants of patented claim 1, 7 and 10 in view of patented claims 15 and 16. That is, in view of patented claims 15 and 16 and knowing the existence of preceding claims 1, 7 and 10, it would have bee obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the differences in patented claims 1, 7 and 10 into claims 15 and 16 to perform the same functions as in patented claims 1, 7 and 10.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kogure (2019/0124264).
Regarding claim 1, Kogure discloses a method for triggering a second camera (801) to perform one or more actions prior to an object appearing in the field of view of the second camera, wherein the second camera is arranged in a camera system including the second camera and at least a first device (802), and wherein a location and a field of view are known for the second camera and a location is known for the first device, the method comprising:
receiving, in the second camera, information indicating that the object is approaching the field of view of the second camera, wherein the received information is based on information from the first device indicating a location and a direction of movement of the object (s901, s902), and
in response to the received information, triggering the second camera to perform one or more of the following actions prior to the object appearing in the field of view of the second camera:
adjusting one or more image processing parameters comprising one or more of:
setting the one or more image processing parameters to respective middle values as starting values for parameter optimization (s904),
reducing a threshold for background segmentation,
extending the stride length of the iterative search during optimization, or removing a division between background and foreground followed by identification of which portions of the image frames belong to the background and which portions belong to the foreground when the object appears in the field of view of the second camera; or
adjusting an exposure time (s906).
Regarding claim 2, Kogure discloses the received information further indicates a predicted time when the object is estimated to appear in the field of view of the second camera (note s902, s903).
Regarding claim 5, Kogure discloses the received information further indicates a velocity of the object, and wherein adjusting an exposure time is based on the velocity of the object such that the higher the velocity, the shorter the exposure time (note s902-s909). The calculation of the object speed is based on the moving vector and moving direction, and a plurality temporally continuously captured frames (note par. 30).
Regarding claim 6, Kogure discloses the first device is one of: a first camera (802), a radar, or a lidar.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, see rejection to claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kogure (2019/0124264) in view of Shen (2020/0228720).
Regarding claim 3, Kogure does not disclose the received information further indicates a subarea of the field of view of the second camera in which the object is estimated to initially appear as claimed. Shen, from the similar field of endeavor, teaches a target object detecting step s101, a position information calculating step s102, and a detail camera position information determining step s103 for tracking an object or objects in subareas of a frame (note Fig. 2). By using these steps, the objects in a frame can be tracked by a detail camera accurately. Thus, knowing tracking capability of the monitoring cameras are crucial in Kogure, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Shen into Kogure so that the monitored objects could be closely tracked.
Regarding claim 4, Kogure discloses adjusting one or more image processing parameters is performed locally in the portion of the image frame that corresponds to the subarea of the field of view of the second camera in which the object is estimated to first appear (note s905, s906).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gordon et al. (10,657,784) discloses an auxiliary detector for aiding video capturing.
Ida et al. (2019/0199932) discloses a plurality of surveillance cameras.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL LEE whose telephone number 571-272-7349. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday from 9:00 am to 6:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, John Miller, can be reached on 571-272-7353. 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).
/MICHAEL LEE/ Primary Examiner,
Art Unit 2422
Prosecution Insights