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 .
Status of Claims
Currently, claims 1-20 are pending in the application. Claims 1, 10, 14, and 16-18 are amended.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 1.
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/20/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments / Amendments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
In the light of amendment to claim 14 , the examiner withdraws the previously made rejection under 35 USC § 112.
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive, see discussion below.
The applicant argued that Venetianer clearly does not differentiate between malfunction alarms and tamper events or potential loitering events as recited in claim 10.
As to the above argument, Carey discloses combining pre-programmed analytics to alert for one or more (or a combination of) abnormal scenarios such as a person carrying a case capable of carrying an semi-automatic or automatic rifle and that person loitering outside of a sensitive building for a pre-determined period of time may be automatically flagged, tracked and an alert sent to security ([0104], FIG. 4 )
Furthermore, Venetianer discloses video surveillance system that differentiates between the motion of a person and pet, thus eliminating most false alarm and provides additional tests and filters to eliminate such false alerts. ([0084],[0138])
Venetianer also discloses detailed description of the appearance of the scene, e.g., the location of sky, foliage, man-made objects, water, etc.; and/or meteorological conditions, e.g., the presence/absence of precipitation, fog, etc., such as a change in the overall view may be important. Exemplary descriptors may describe sudden lighting changes; they may indicate camera motion, especially the facts that the camera started or stopped moving, and in the latter case, whether it returned to its previous view or at least to a previously known view; they may indicate changes in the quality of the video feed, e.g. if it suddenly became noisier or went dark, potentially indicating tampering with the feed ([0104]).
Accordingly, Examiner maintains the rejection with regards to above arguments.
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 of this title, 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 1-3, 6-13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carey (US 20210314530, hereinafter Carey) in view of Venetianer et al. (US 20160155003, hereinafter Venetianer) and ANDERHOLM et al.( US 20190096220, hereinafter ANDERHOLM)
Regarding Claim 1, Carey discloses a digital video alarm loitering monitoring computer system including a digital video analytics server including a digital video analytics computer having non-transitory memory configured to store machine instructions that are to be executed by the computer ([0066] , FIG. 1; [0071] data analytics module 140 performing processing of the video and the mobile communication device data; [0104], FIG. 4, combining pre-programmed analytics to alert for one or more abnormal scenarios such as a person carrying an semi-automatic or automatic rifle and that person loitering outside of a sensitive building for a pre-determined period), the machine instructions when executed by the computer implement the following functions:
obtaining a digital video snapshot from a digital video stream in response to detecting a loitering event indicator based on a potential loitering object ([0102], FIG. 4, data analytics module 140 performing real time and post time analysis of video and tracking of every person with a backpack 410 within a particular area or within a particular camera view; [0105] tracking and analyzing particular objects to identify the same objects in later obtained video streams and/or still images: Review the original video from the original time of the scheduled event and then classify a person as a loiterer and flagged for review at the later scheduled event; [0147], FIG. 9, #902, FIG. 1, video data is captured by one or more video cameras 110);
object analyzing the digital video snapshot to detect a detected object, a detected object type and a detected object location within the digital video snapshot ([0102], FIG. 4, data analytics module 140 performing real time and post time analysis of video and tracking of every person with a backpack 410 within a particular area or within a particular camera view; [0104] , combining pre-programmed analytics to alert for one or more abnormal scenarios such as a person carrying a case capable of carrying an semi-automatic or automatic rifle and that person loitering outside of a sensitive building for a pre-determined period of time are automatically flagged, tracked and an alert sent to security);
determining an active monitoring loitering object in response to the potential loitering object and the detected object ([0102], FIG. 4, if the backpack 410 is separated from a person 405 and left for a predetermined period of time, this video may be flagged for real time alerts and/or post time analysis; [0105] classify a person as a loiterer and flagged for review at the later scheduled event and send a warning to the security team reviewing the tapes in real time if that was a person of interest; [0126] security personal to query the analytical recognition system 100, 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, 700 and/or 800 in real time or post time); and
repeating the obtaining, object analyzing and determining functions ([0102], FIG. 4, an object, e.g., backpack 410, might be flagged, time stamped and/or separated into an individual video stream for analysis later and a user in real time or post time analysis can zoom in for high-definition tracking or for incorporation into a data/video/image sequencer 200 and the person 405 dropping a preprogrammed suspicious object is tracked and analyzed for real time alerts and/or post time analysis through one or more cameras 110, a network of cameras 110, 110a, 110b, one or more antennae 150, and/or a network of antennae 150, etc.; [0151], FIG. 9 continually capture video data and/or mobile communication device data as described above)).
Carey does not explicitly disclose determining [determine] a loitering time out period for the potential loitering object selected from a first loitering time out period for a first potential loitering object and a second loitering time out period for a second potential loitering object, the first potential loitering object is a human being, the second potential loitering object is a stationary object, the first loitering time out period is longer than the second loitering time out period, the second loitering time out period is a time period in which the stationary object persists within the digital video stream
Venetianer teaches determining [to determine] a loitering time out period for the potential loitering object selected from a first loitering time out period for a first potential loitering object ([0127], FIG. 18b, behavior related to an area of the video scene with behavior of loitering for a period of time on a railway track; [0139] detecting unattended luggage is to define an exclusion zone around the stationary object and alerting only if no object of interest (e.g., a person) is inside the exclusion zone having a time associated with it so that an alert is generated only if the exclusion zone has no object of interest for a prescribed) a second loitering time out period for a second potential loitering object, the first potential loitering object is a human being, the second potential loitering object is a stationary object, the first loitering time out period is longer than the second loitering time out period ([0144], FIG. 24, stationary object detection algorithm also detect the person responsible for leaving the object behind and the system tracks the person after the stationary object detection ( with longer time our period) – detecting the unattended package when the person is outside of the exclusion zone for a sufficient amount of time, independent of whether there are other people around the package; [0145], detect an unattended vehicle if a vehicle stops, a person gets out of the vehicle from the driver's seat and that person leaves the area of the vehicle for longer than a predefined time period and an alert may be generated only after a longer period of time ), the second loitering time out period is a time period in which the stationary object persists within the digital video stream ([0141], observe and analyze a given video scene for an extended period of time, and may detect all stationary objects; Claim 21, tracking a duration that the first stationary object remains stationary; issuing an alert in response to determining that the duration of time the first stationary object has remained stationary exceeds a threshold)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of loitering time out period for the potential loitering object selected as taught by Venetianer ([0139]) into the imaging system of Carey in order to provide data from surveillance sensors other than video for improved searching capabilities and integrates data from surveillance sensors other than video for improved event detection capabilities (Venetianer, [0079]) resulting in the predictable result of improving quality of monitoring the video might ask a store associate to go to the location to help with the accident.
Carey & Venetianer do not explicitly disclose the stationary object is an open door.
ANDERHOLM teaches the stationary object is an open door ([0189], detect loitering includes a door status switch or the like that can be used to reset the timer such as each time the door open when a new customer enters, the timer is reset so that no alarm is triggered, which is especially useful in high traffic periods).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of the stationary object is an open door as taught by ANDERHOLM ([0189]) into the imaging system of Carey & Venetianer in order to provide system for detecting a person at a location e.g. automatic teller machine vestibule, changing room, toilet and locker room in situations where privacy needs to be protected, for example changing rooms or showers. (ANDERHOLM, [0006]) resulting in the predictable result of improving quality of monitoring the video might ask a store associate to go to the location to help with the accident.
Regarding Claim 2, Carey in view of Venetianer and ANDERHOLM discloses the digital video alarm loitering monitoring computer system of claim 1, Carey discloses wherein the machine instructions when executed by the computer implements the further function of transmitting a loitering event signal ([0104], capable of combining preprogrammed analytics to alert for one or more (or a combination of) abnormal scenarios such as a person carrying a case capable of carrying an semi-automatic or automatic rifle and that person loitering outside of a sensitive building for a pre-determined period of time).
Regarding Claim 3, Carey in view of Venetianer and ANDERHOLM discloses the digital video alarm loitering monitoring computer system of claim 2, Carey discloses wherein the transmit function including transmitting the loitering event signal to an alarm monitoring serve ([0102], FIG. 4, if the object such as a backpack 410 is separated from a person 405 and left for a predetermined period of time, this video may be flagged for real time alerts and/or post time analysis and time stamped and separated into an individual video stream for analysis later)
Regarding Claim 6, Carey in view of Venetianer and ANDERHOLM discloses the digital video alarm loitering monitoring computer system of claim 1, Carey discloses, wherein the object analyzing function is carried out with an artificial intelligence (AI) module ([0108] the data analytics module 140 utilizes vector analysis and/or image and data vector analysis algorithms and/or machine learning algorithms [artificial intelligence (AI)] to assess one or more convergence patterns).
Regarding Claim 7, Carey in view of Venetianer and ANDERHOLM discloses the digital video alarm loitering monitoring computer system of claim 1, Carey discloses wherein the obtain function includes transmitting a request for the digital video snapshot to a network camera streaming the digital video stream ([0012], the analytical recognition system further includes a user interface configured to enable the plurality of profiles to be mined based on a user-inputted criterion; [0077], data analytics module 140 assigns a person to a positive list, an undetermined list, or a negative list based on the video data, the mobile communication device data, the profile data, and/or user-inputted criteria (e.g., inputted via the investigation module 800).
Regarding Claim 8, Carey in view of Venetianer and ANDERHOLM discloses the digital video alarm loitering monitoring computer system of claim 1, Carey discloses, wherein the repeat function is repeated at a regular interval ([0102], FIG. 4, an object, e.g., backpack 410, might be flagged, time stamped and/or separated into an individual video stream for analysis later and a user in real time or post time analysis and the person 405 dropping a preprogrammed suspicious object is tracked and analyzed for real time alerts and/or post time analysis through one or more cameras 110).
Regarding Claim 9, Carey in view of Venetianer and ANDERHOLM discloses the digital video alarm loitering monitoring computer system of claim 1, Venetianer discloses wherein the repeat function is repeated until the loitering time out period is one of the first or second time out periods ([([0144], FIG. 24, stationary object detection algorithm also detect the person responsible for leaving the object behind and the system tracks the person after the stationary object detection ( with longer time our period) – detecting the unattended package when the person is outside of the exclusion zone for a sufficient amount of time, independent of whether there are other people around the package).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of loitering time out period for the potential loitering object selected as taught by Venetianer ([01391]) into the imaging system of Carey in order to provide data from surveillance sensors other than video for improved searching capabilities and integrates data from surveillance sensors other than video for improved event detection capabilities (Venetianer, [0079]) resulting in the predictable result of improving quality of monitoring the video might ask a store associate to go to the location to help with the accident,
Regarding Claim 10, Analogous rejection as the rejection of Claim 1 applies.
Carey discloses combining pre-programmed analytics to alert for one or more (or a combination of) abnormal scenarios such as a person carrying a case capable of carrying an semi-automatic or automatic rifle and that person loitering outside of a sensitive building for a pre-determined period of time may be automatically flagged, tracked and an alert sent to security ([0104], FIG. 4 )
Furthermore, Venetianer discloses video surveillance system that differentiates between the motion of a person and pet, thus eliminating most false alarm and provides additional tests and filters to eliminate such false alerts. ([0084],[0138])
Venetianer also discloses detailed description of the appearance of the scene, e.g., the location of sky, foliage, man-made objects, water, etc.; and/or meteorological conditions, e.g., the presence/absence of precipitation, fog, etc., such as a change in the overall view may be important. Exemplary descriptors may describe sudden lighting changes; they may indicate camera motion, especially the facts that the camera started or stopped moving, and in the latter case, whether it returned to its previous view or at least to a previously known view; they may indicate changes in the quality of the video feed, e.g. if it suddenly became noisier or went dark, potentially indicating tampering with the feed ([0104]).
The same reason or rational of obviousness motivation applied as used above in claim 1.
Regarding Claim 14, Carey in view of Venetianer & ANDERHOLM discloses the digital video alarm loitering monitoring computer system of claim 10,
ANDERHOLM discloses wherein the tamper alarm is in response to a digital video camera transmitting the digital video stream being covered and the malfunction alarm is in response to a mechanical drift event of the digital video camera or a chip malfunction of the digital video camera ([0197], FIG. 27, Control module 325 is further communicatively coupled (either through a wired or wireless connection) to a timer 345 and an alarm 365, and is operable to cause timer 345 to initiate a count-down, and to activate alarm 365). The same reason or rational of obviousness motivation applied as used above in claim 1.
Regarding Claims 11-15: System claims 11-15 of using the corresponding system claimed in claims 1-3 and 6-9 and the rejections of which are incorporated herein for the same reasons as used above.
Regarding Claims 16-18 and 20 : System claims 16-18 of using the corresponding system claimed in claims 1-3 and 6 and the rejections of which are incorporated herein for the same reasons as used above.
Regarding Claim 19, Analogous rejection as the rejection of Claim 13 applies.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carey (US 20210314530, hereinafter Carey) in view of Venetianer, ANDERHOLM & San Pedro et al. (US 20220172586, hereinafter San Pedro ).
Regarding Claim 4, Carey in view of Venetianer & ANDERHOLM discloses the digital video alarm loitering monitoring computer system of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the machine instructions when executed by the computer implements the further function of transmitting a closing signal.
San Pedro teaches wherein the machine instructions when executed by the computer implements the further function of transmitting a closing signal ([0066], while the event of interest is detected in following video frames of video footage 204 within a predetermined period of time, additional video frames may be added to the video segment and the video analytics system 206 determine an end of the video segment in response to determining that the event of interest has not been detected in video footage 204 within a period of time).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of function of transmitting a closing signal as taught by San Pedro ([0066]) into the imaging system of Carey in order to reduce the amount of video footage collected as well as retained for subsequent review and increase video processing since the types of events of interest that need to be detected within the video footage are reduced (San Pedro, [0005]).
Regarding Claim 5, Carey in view of Venetianer, and ANDERHOLM & San Pedro discloses the digital video alarm loitering monitoring computer system of claim 4.
San Pedro discloses wherein the transmit function includes transmitting the closing signal to an alarm monitoring server ([0066], to add buffer time to the video segment, video analytics system 206 an be configured to add one or more time buffers so that the delimited video segment begins a first period of time (e.g., minutes) before the event of interest is detected and ends a second period of time (e.g., minutes) after the event of interest is no longer being detected). The same reason or rational of obviousness motivation applied as used above in claim 4.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Samuel D Fereja whose telephone number is (469)295-9243. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-5PM.
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, DAVID CZEKAJ can be reached on (571) 272-7327. 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.
/SAMUEL D FEREJA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487