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 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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galvin et al. (US 20200099896 A1, hereafter “Galvin”) in view of Chen et al. (US 20170302719 A1, hereafter “Chen”).
Regarding claim 1. Galvin discloses an imaging control apparatus comprising:
one or more memories storing instructions (0212; Figure 26); and
one or more processors (0212; Figure 26; “[0212] Network video recorder 2602 includes a processor, memory, a set of Ethernet ports and an Ethernet switch connected to the set of Ethernet ports. ...”) executing the instructions to:
acquire a streaming status of image data generated by an image pickup apparatus (0174; Figure 21; wherein the selection of a camera corresponds to one type of streaming status according to the application itself, “[0174] Within the camera control area the IP client GUI provides at least the following set of controls: mechanical control, digital control, digital zoom box, and set of PTZ controls. In FIG. 21, step 531, the camera controls are enabled by selecting a camera by clicking an icon in the camera tree view or by selecting a video panel in the video view area.”), and
detect an object from the image data (0112; Figure 10); and
control the imaging direction of the image pickup apparatus according to a detected position of the object and the determined sensitivity (0177; Figure 21; “[0177] … the set of PTZ control interacts with a selected PTZ-enabled camera. The PTZ-enabled camera is selected by clicking on a live video panel in the video view area. The set of PTZ controls allows for controlling zoom 540, controlling pan 542, controlling tilt 544, controlling iris 545 and controlling focus 546. At step 548, PTZ speed of movement is set during preset PTZ tours. Furthermore, the set of PTZ controls include the use of preset camera positions, tours and settings. At step 550, preset positions are set and stored using the PTZ controls. When a preset position is selected, the PTZ-enabled camera automatically moves to the corresponding preset position. ...”).
Galvin failed to disclose one or more processors executing the instructions to:
determine, according to the streaming status, sensitivity relating to a control speed in an imaging direction relative to a change in a position of the object.
Chen in the same field of endeavor, however, shows one or more processors executing the instructions to:
determine, according to the streaming status, sensitivity relating to a control speed in an imaging direction relative to a change in a position of the object (0070; Figure 1; “[0070] … the zoom controller may determine the zoom region motion based on a global motion, a difference between a current frame zoom region anchor point and a previous frame zoom region anchor point, a previous frame global motion, and a difference between a previous frame zoom region anchor point and an earlier frame zoom region anchor point. The zoom controller may utilize global motion information … to determine the zoom region motion in accordance with zoom region motion speed and/or zoom region acceleration. … the zoom region motion may not drive mechanical pan, tilt, and/or zoom (e.g., motors, actuators, etc., for pan, tilt, and/or zoom).”).
It would have been obvious to the person of having ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the determination of sensitivity relating to a control speed in an imaging direction relative to a change in a position of the object as shown by Chen in the imaging control apparatus of Galvin in order to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the imaging control apparatus as well as in order to yield predictive result.
Regarding claim 2. Galvin discloses the imaging control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors further execute the instructions to change a zoom value of the image pickup apparatus according to the streaming status (0112; Figure 10; “[0112] ... The default configuration for an IP camera device includes time stamp synchronization to network video recorder 1, choice of compression algorithm (e.g. H.264), image quality, image size, frame rate, PTZ parameters, ...”).
Regarding claim 3. Galvin discloses the imaging control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the streaming status includes a streaming state in which the image data is being streamed and a standby state in which streaming of the image data stands by (0174; Figure 21; ‘531’), and
wherein the one or more processors further execute the instructions to set a zoom value for the standby state on a wide-angle side of the zoom value for the streaming state (0177; Figure 21; ‘540’).
Regarding claim 4. Galvin discloses the imaging control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the streaming status includes a streaming state in which the image data is being streamed and a standby state in which streaming of the image data stands by (0174; Figure 21; ‘531’),
wherein the one or more memories store a zoom value for the streaming state in a case where the streaming state changes to the standby state (0177; Figure 21), and
wherein the one or more processors further execute the instructions to change the zoom value to a stored zoom value in a case where the standby state changes to the streaming state (0177; Figure 21; ‘540’).
Regarding claim 5. Galvin discloses the imaging control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the streaming status includes a streaming state in which the image data is being streamed, a standby state in which streaming of the image data stands by, and a preview state that can become the streaming state before the standby state (0174; Figure 21; ‘531’), and
wherein the one or more processors further execute the instructions to set a zoom value to a wider-angle side than the preview state in the standby state (0177; Figure 21; ‘540’).
Regarding claim 6. Galvin discloses the imaging control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the streaming status includes a streaming state in which the image data is being streamed and a standby state in which streaming of the image data stands by (0174; Figure 21; ‘531’), and
wherein the one or more processors further execute the instructions to make a zooming speed in the streaming state slower than that in the standby state (0177; Figure 21; “[0177] ... The set of PTZ controls allows for controlling zoom 540, controlling pan 542, controlling tilt 544, controlling iris 545 and controlling focus 546. At step 548, PTZ speed of movement is set during preset PTZ tours. ...”).
Regarding claims 7-9. Claims 7-9 have similar limitations as to those treated in the rejection to claim 6 above, and met by the references discussed above. Therefore, claims 7-9 have been rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used in the rejection to claim 6 above.
Regarding claim 10. Method claim 10 is drawn to the method of using the corresponding apparatus claimed in claim 1. Therefore method claim 10 corresponds to apparatus claim 1 is rejected for same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Regarding claim 11. Non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim 11 is drawn to the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of using the corresponding to the method of using the same as claimed in claim 10. Therefore, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim 11 correspond to the method claim 10, and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
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 1-11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6, 8-9, 11-12, are 14-15 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,425,733 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because while the pending claims and the allowed claims slightly differ in language, the scope is similar and is an obvious variant of language used (Please see the tabular claim comparison shown below).
19310047 (Instant Application)
US 12,425,733 B2
1.
1. + 8. + 9.
2.
2.
3.
3.
4.
4.
5.
5.
6.
6.
7.
6. + 8.
8.
11.
9.
12.
10.
14.
11.
15.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASMAMAW G TARKO whose telephone number is (571)272-7493. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8am-5pm 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, Chris Kelley can be reached at (571) 272-7331. 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.
/ASMAMAW G TARKO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482
Prosecution Insights