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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: the recitation of “a computer-readable” in line 1 is suggested to change to - - a non-transitory computer-readable - -. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-5, 7, 8, 14, 17 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 and 6-10 of U.S. Patent No. 12, 416,472. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations as recited claims 1-3 and 6-10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,416,472 cover and encompass the limitations as recited in claims 1-5, 7, 8, 14, 17 and 20 of the instant application.
The corresponding of claims are as follow:
Regarding claims 1, 2 and 4 of the instant application, claim 1 of the U.S.Patent No. 12,416,472 discloses all subject matter claimed.
Regarding claims 3 of the instant application, claim 2 of the U.S.Patent No. 12,416,472 discloses all subject matter claimed.
Regarding claim 5 of the instant application, claim 3 of the U.S.Patent No. 12,416,472 discloses all subject matter claimed.
Regarding claim 7 of the instant application, claim 6 of the U.S.Patent No. 12,416,472 discloses all subject matter claimed.
Regarding claim 8 of the instant application, claim 7 of the U.S.Patent No. 12,416,472 discloses all subject matter claimed.
Regarding claim 14 of the instant application, claim 8 of the U.S.Patent No. 12,416,472 discloses all subject matter claimed.
Regarding claim 17 of the instant application, claim 9 of the U.S.Patent No. 12,416,472 discloses all subject matter claimed.
Regarding claim 20 of the instant application, claim 10 of the U.S.Patent No. 12,416,472 discloses all subject matter claimed.
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) 1-4, 6-8, 12-16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Florence et al. (US 2006/0225335, cited by applicant).
Regarding claim 1, Florence teaches a human detection and warning method comprising: acquiring a current scene image (fig. 5, [0051]) within a current field of view of a sighting device (10, fig. 1); determining whether there is a human target being currently aimed at and/or whether there is currently target tracking of a human target, based on a target recognition result of the current scene image and a position of an aiming mark in the current scene image (fig. 7 and [0065]-[0067]); and triggering the sighting device to enter an abnormal aiming mode if there is a human target being currently aimed at and/or therein currently target tracking of a human target (fig. 7 and [0066]-[0067]).
Regarding claim 2, Florence further teaches wherein determining whether there is a human target being currently aimed at and/or whether there is currently target tracking of a human target based on the target recognition result of the current scene image and the position of the aiming mark, comprises: performing target recognition with respect to the current scene image to determine a human target contained in the current scene image and mark the human target; determining the position of the aiming mark in the current scene image; determining whether the human target is currently being aimed at based on a position of a marking of the human target being marked and the position of the aiming mark in the current scene image ([0063]-[0067]).
Regarding claim 3, Florence further teaches wherein marking the human target comprises: display a target frame at a periphery of the human target, and/or highlighting an outline or an image area of the human target, the way of highlighting comprising at least one of the following: highlighting in specific color, outlined highlighting, highlighting with higher brightness (fig. 7).
Regarding claim 4, Florence further teaches wherein determining whether there is a human target being currently aimed at and/or whether there is target tracking of a human target based on the target recognition result of the current scene image and the position of the aiming mark, comprises: determining a position of the aiming mark in the current scene image, and performing target recognition with respect to a predetermined area image corresponding to the position of the aiming mark; determining, based on the target recognition with respect to the predetermined area image, whether there is a human target present within the predetermined area image corresponding to the position of the aiming mark to determine whether there is a human target being currently aimed at (figs. 5 and 7).
Regarding claim 6, Florence further teaches wherein the abnormal aiming mode comprises at least one of the following: providing a warning notice, the warning notice comprising at least one of an audible warning, a light warning, a graphic warning on a display screen, and a target highlighting warning; providing an abnormal display warning, the abnormal display comprising at least one of disappearing of an aiming mark, offsetting of an aiming mark, a black screen, a splash screen, and jittering of a display screen; shutdown of a system; providing a warning notice and starting a timer, and providing an abnormal display warning or shutting down the system if the accumulated time of the timer reaches a threshold and there is still a human target being currently aimed at; and issuing a shoot-locking instruction, the shoot-locking instruction being used to control a trigger locking member mounted on shooting equipment to lock a trigger of the shooting equipment (fig. 7, [0066] and [0067]).
Regarding claim 7, Florence further teaches maintaining or restoring a normal aiming mode of the sighting device if there is no human target being currently aimed at and/or there is no target tracking of a human target; or resuming a normal aiming mode if a control instruction to manually revoke the abnormal aiming mode is received ([0062]).
Regarding claim 8, Florence further teaches wherein the current scene image is one of an infrared image, a visible light image, a micro-light image, and a multi-light fusion image (fig. 5, [0022] and [0051]).
Regarding claim 12, Florence further teaches wherein determining whether there is a human target being currently aimed at and/or whether there is currently target tracking of a human target, comprises: performing target recognition within a preset range of the aiming mark based on the position of the aiming mark in the current scene image; determining, based on the target recognition, whether a human target is contained within the preset range; if a human target is contained within the preset range, determining whether there is target tracking of the human target by determining whether the human target is contained within the preset range in the current scene image during a set time period or for each of a consecutive preset number of frames ([0062], [0065] and [0066]).
Regarding claim 13, Florence further teaches herein before determining whether there is a human target being currently aimed at and/or whether there is currently target tracking of a human target, the method further comprises: if it is determined that a human target is contained in the current scene image based on the target recognition result of the current scene image, highlighting the human target in a different way from other aiming targets ([0065] and [0066]).
Regarding claim 14, Florence further teaches a sighting device (figs. 1 and 2) comprising: a memory (23) for storing a computer program therein; a processor (22) configured to execute the computer program to implement a human detection and warning method according to claim 1; an image sensor (18) configured to capture a current scene image within a current field of view ; and a display module (14) configured to display the current scene image and the aiming marking (fig. 5).
Regarding claim 15, Florence further teaches wherein determining whether there is a human target being currently aimed at and/or whether there is currently target tracking of a human target based on the target recognition result of the current scene image and the position of the aiming mark, comprises: performing target recognition with respect to the current scene image to determine a human target contained in the current scene image and mark the human target; determining the position of the aiming mark in the current scene image; determining whether the human target is currently being aimed at based on a position of a marking of the human target being marked and the position of the aiming mark in the current scene image ([0063]-[0066]).
Regarding claim 16, Florence further teaches wherein determining whether there is a human target being currently aimed at and/or whether there is target tracking of a human target based on the target recognition result of the current scene image and the position of the aiming mark, comprises: determining a position of the aiming mark in the current scene image, and performing target recognition with respect to a predetermined area image corresponding to the position of the aiming mark; determining, based on the target recognition with respect to the predetermined area image, whether there is a human target present within the predetermined area image corresponding to the position of the aiming mark to determine whether there is a human target being currently aimed at (figs. 5, 7 and [0065]-[0066]).
Regarding claim 20, Florence further teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having a computer program stored thereon, the computer program being executable by a processor to implement a human detection and warning method according to claim 1 (fig. 2 and [0021]).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 9 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Florence in view of Li et al. (CN 107894189A).
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Florence teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above. Florence further teaches wherein determining whether there is a human target being currently aimed at and/or whether there is currently target tracking of a human target, comprises: determining a human target contained in the current scene image based on target recognition with respective to the current scene image ([0065] and [0066]) but a change in relative position as claimed.
However Li teaches automatic tracking system and method for target point comprises determining a change in relative position as claimed (page 2).
In view of Li’s teaching, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Florence by incorporating the teaching as taught by Li in order to arrive at the claimed invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10, 11 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to further teach or fairy suggest wherein determining whether there is currently target tracking of the human target based on the change in relative position between the human target and the aiming mark during the set time period, comprises at least one of the following: determining whether the human target is considered to fast approach the aiming mark and has reached a preset range of the aiming mark, based on a trend of change in the relative position between the human target and the aiming mark in the current scene image during the set time period or within a consecutive preset number of frames, to determine whether there is currently target tracking of the human target; determining whether the human target remains in a preset range of the aiming mark within a preset time threshold, based on the relative position between the human target and the aiming marking the current scene image during the set time period or within a consecutive preset number of frames, to determine whether there is currently target tracking of the human target; and 3 determining whether the human target is considered to fast approach the aiming mark, has reached a preset range of the aiming mark, and remains in a preset range of the aiming mark within a preset time threshold, based on the relative position between the human target and the aiming marking the current scene image during the set time period or within a consecutive preset number of frames, to determine whether there is currently target tracking of the human target as recited in claim 10. Similar limitations as recited in claim 19 and further limitations of the dependent claim 11.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
References: Luczak et al. (US 2024/0127619); Towery (WO2005052494A2) Ehrlich et al. (WO 2023/042195) and Malakatas (US 2003/0140774) are cited because they are related system and method for object detecting of sighting device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tuyen Kim Vo whose telephone number is (571)270-1657. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs: 8AM-6:30PM.
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, Steven Paik can be reached at 571-272-2404. 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.
/TUYEN K VO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876