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 .
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 1-2 and 9-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 and 9-11 of U.S. Patent No. US 11468753 B2 in view of Krahnstoever et al. Pub. No.: US 20110316697 A1 (“Krahnstoever”).
Claims 1-2 and 9-10 of U.S. Patent No. US 11468753 B2 are similar in scope as the instant application of claims 1 and 9, but lack “manipulating a position of two or more dots on a display screen displaying the video”
On the other hand, Krahnstoever discloses “manipulating a position of two or more dots on a display screen displaying the video” (see figs. 5A-5C and paragraphs [0031]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Claims 1-2 and 9-10 of U.S. Patent No. US 11468753 B2 with the teaching of Krahnstoever in order to provide a system and a method for monitoring/ /tracking an entity within an area, to assist operators in detecting suspicious behavior, or other behaviors or events of interest.
Claim 2 correspond to patent claim 3.
Claim 10 correspond to patent claim 11.
Claims 17 and 24 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 4 of U.S. Patent No. US 12361806 B2 in view of Kitagawa, Pub. No.: US 20140267751 A1 (“Kitagawa”).
Claims 1 and 4 of U.S. Patent No. US 12361806 B2 are similar in scope as the instant application of claims 17 and 24, but lack “calculating a setting region associated with the user input data for at least one image-capture device;” “initiating an alert on a reporting device associated with the detected object;” and, “generating a report on the display device.”
On the other hand, Kitagawa discloses “calculating a setting region associated with the user input data for at least one image-capture device;” (see paragraph [0063]) “initiating an alert on a reporting device associated with the detected object” (see paragraph [0082]) and, “generating a report on the display device” (see paragraphs [0072]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify 1 and 4 of U.S. Patent No. US 12361806 B2 of with the teaching of Kitagawa in order to provide a technique to, when monitoring a region using a plurality of cameras, reduce the effort expended in configuring detection settings for each individual camera.
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 17, 21-24 and 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kitagawa. Pub. No.: US 20140267751 A1 (“Kitagawa”).
Regarding Claim 17, Kitagawa discloses a security detection system (see fig.7) comprising:
a memory for storing instructions (see paragraph [0094]);
at least one image-capture device (see paragraph [0027]: monitoring cameras 3001 to 3003);
an input device to input data for a setting operation (see paragraph [0035]: The user operation input unit 105 accepts user input for setting detection settings);
a display device (see paragraph [0034]: detection setting display unit 104 is a liquid crystal monitor for display.);
a reporting device (see paragraph [0072]: detection notification display unit 111 displays the results of detection notifications together with camera videos.); and,
a processor configured to execute the instructions (see paragraph [0094]) to perform:
displaying a setting screen on the display device (see paragraph [0044]: setting screen);
processing user input data input by a user using the displayed setting screen (see paragraph [0044]: The marked points A, B, C, D on the camera video displayed on a setting screen are selected through a user operation on the screen);
calculating a setting region associated with the user input data for at least one image-capture device (see paragraph [0044]: The marked points A, B, C, D on the camera video displayed on a setting screen are selected through a user operation on the screen; as a result, coordinates of these four points on the screen are obtained.);
initiating a set action using the user input data (see paragraph [0056]: passage detection is input as a detection type, start coordinates and end coordinates of the passage detection line L1 are input as a site targeted for detection, );
image-capturing the setting region with an image-capture device and generating image data (see paragraph [0060]: monitoring camera 3002 is selected as a camera targeted for detection settings, and a video of the monitoring camera 3002 is displayed on the screen.);
detection processing using a captured image data from the image-capture device (see paragraph [0070]: a detection display terminal when passage detection is performed by the monitoring camera 3001 and information to that effect is notified while the user is viewing a video of the monitoring camera 3002.);
identifying an object in the setting region (see figs.11 and 15);
initiating an alert on a reporting device associated with the detected object (see paragraph [0082]: a video of the monitoring camera 3002 is displayed on the screen, together with detection setting 1 as the detection information. Furthermore, a sentence "PASSAGE DETECTED!" is superimposed on the displayed video. see paragraph [0087]: the video of the monitoring camera 3002 is displayed on the screen, and a sentence "PASSAGE DETECTED BY ANOTHER CAMERA!" is superimposed on the displayed video.); and,
generating a report on the display device (see figs.11 and 15).
Regarding Claim 21, Kitagawa discloses the security detection system as discussed in the rejection of claim 17. Kitagawa further discloses wherein the object is identified using the captured image data as one of a person, a robotic machine, an animal, and a motor vehicle (see figs.11 and 15).
Regarding Claim 22, Kitagawa discloses the security detection system as discussed in the rejection of claim 17. Kitagawa further discloses wherein the setting region is defined by one or more warning lines (see figs.4 and 5).
Regarding Claim 23, Kitagawa discloses the security detection system as discussed in the rejection of claim 22. Kitagawa further discloses wherein the warning lines are defined by manipulating a position of two or more dots on the setting screen (see figs.4, 5 and paragraphs [0044-0045]).
Regarding Claim 24, the claim is being analyzed as discussed with respect to
the rejection of claim 17.
Regarding Claim 28, the claim is being analyzed as discussed with respect to
the rejection of claim 21.
Regarding Claim 29, the claim is being analyzed as discussed with respect to
the rejection of claim 22.
Regarding Claim 30, the claim is being analyzed as discussed with respect to
the rejection of claim 23.
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.
Claims 18-20 and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitagawa. Pub. No.: US 20140267751 A1 (“Kitagawa”) in view of Luo Pub. No.: US 20070182543 A1 (“Luo”).
Regarding Claim 18, Kitagawa discloses the security detection system as discussed in the rejection of claim 17.
Kitagawa fails to disclose:
wherein the reporting device is a siren.
In analogous art, Luo teaches:
wherein the reporting device is a siren (see paragraphs [0011] and [0020]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the system of Kitagawa with the teaching as taught by Luo in order to provide an intelligent home security system by applying psychological knowledge and human intelligence to the system that can significantly reduce the possibility of an intruder breaking-in or even prevent a breaking-in from happening by real-life simulating, reactive real-life simulating, active and intelligent responding.
Regarding Claim 19, Kitagawa discloses the security detection system as discussed in the rejection of claim 17.
Kitagawa fails to disclose:
wherein the reporting device has a light.
In analogous art, Luo teaches:
wherein the reporting device has a light (see paragraphs [0011] and [0018]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the system of Kitagawa with the teaching as taught by Luo in order to provide an intelligent home security system by applying psychological knowledge and human intelligence to the system that can significantly reduce the possibility of an intruder breaking-in or even prevent a breaking-in from happening by real-life simulating, reactive real-life simulating, active and intelligent responding.
Regarding Claim 20, Kitagawa discloses the security detection system as discussed in the rejection of claim 17.
Kitagawa fails to disclose:
wherein the reporting device has a speaker.
In analogous art, Luo teaches:
the reporting device has a speaker (see paragraphs [0011] and [0020]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the system of Kitagawa with the teaching as taught by Luo in order to provide an intelligent home security system by applying psychological knowledge and human intelligence to the system that can significantly reduce the possibility of an intruder breaking-in or even prevent a breaking-in from happening by real-life simulating, reactive real-life simulating, active and intelligent responding.
Regarding Claim 25, the claim is being analyzed as discussed with respect to
the rejection of claim 18.
Regarding Claim 26, the claim is being analyzed as discussed with respect to
the rejection of claim 19.
Regarding Claim 27, the claim is being analyzed as discussed with respect to
the rejection of claim 20.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alazar Tilahun whose telephone number is (571)270-5712. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday, From 9:00 AM-6:00 PM.
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, Benjamin Bruckart can be reached at 571-272-3982. 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.
/ALAZAR TILAHUN/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2424
/A.T/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2424